Can anyone think of another service pretty much everyone in the US must have that serves us so poorly? Is there anything that really compares to health insurance companies? I'm drawing a blank.
You've mentioned other things that suck, but it's possible that healthcare is the worst.
It occurs to me that for-profit health-insurers might, for a lotta people, really hit the combustible overlap between "morally questionable" and "really f*****g annoying".
Yeah, sure, the Wall Street investment-banker probably has some connection with upholding the economic-political system that makes predatory insurance companies a reality, but he's not the one you're tearfully pleading with on the phone while your little daughter waits to see if her chemotherapy can go forward.
(Never really thought of any of this before, but I would speculate that the currently ambience of, shall we say, "understanding" surrpunding the Adjustor's motivations and methods is not one that would be seen in the hypothetical event of some captain of another industry being shot dead on the street by a total stranger.)
Just watched an Inside Edition report built around telling us what Luigi Mangione had for his Christmas dinner in jail.
Despite blatantly coasting on the folksiness of it all, the anchorwoman made sure to throw in a reference to the "misguided adulation" surrounding Mangione.
After a brief foray into legal discussion, the report finished with the news that the burgundy sweater LM wore to court has sold-out online.
Inside Edition has hosted the most pathetic of the media-moralism on this.
They've got another video about a comedian who prompted a "backlash", or some such term, with jokes about the Thompson shooting. And, from the clips, yeah, it looked like the guy might've been over-hamming it. But the only "backlash" they could find was in the "nervous" nature of the audience's laughter, and a couple of comments on social media along the lines of "Too soon, dude."
Arriving late, but:
1) The health insurance industry is parasitic. It adds no value to anyone's health care, only extracts rents. And there is violence inherent in capitalism, concealed under a mask of law.
2) Brian Thompson's death serves no purpose--it doesn't get anyone's child their needed chemotherapy, and probably won't even inspire politicians to create universal health care (which a majority of Americans do favor). There is no justification for such a senseless killing, even if it is in some way understandable.
3) If it would have saved lives, it might have been justifiable. Hitler has been mentioned, as has Syria, and I don't hesitate to say that in 2011 there was a moral case to be made for assassinating Assad--tens of thousands of Syrians might still be alive if he'd been taken out at the beginning of the civil war.
^^ Just watched it again. They actually have three condemnatory quotes, with one coming in-person from an "attorney and jury consultant". While I can easily think of reasons why someone practicing those professions would have relevant opinions on public perceptions of the crime, the reporter doesn't see fit to explore that angle.
Ends with a beefy ex-convict explaining that the prisoners in Mangione's jail communicate with each other through the air vents. Which sounds like something out of a swashbuckling adventure novel.
Brian Thompson's death...probably won't even inspire politicians to create universal health care (which a majority of Americans do favor)
Politics has really been the dog that didn't bark throughout all of this. The few times it does get brought into the discussion, even by supporters of the shooter, it's just as often as not from a conservative as a liberal/left perspective. "It's not fair they're persecuting Mangione, but letting illegals run amok" etc.
Arriving late, but:
1) The health insurance industry is parasitic. It adds no value to anyone's health care, only extracts rents. <snip>
And of course it needn’t be like this. Fundamentally insurance is just about sharing risk. It could be run as a mutual or and/or on a not for profit basis. But there’d still be the challenge of the wealthy being willing and able to pay for a higher level or better quality of provision.
In away you could see the UK’s NHS as being a not for profit insurance arrangement where premiums are charged according to ability to pay and care is provided according to need. Private health insurance exists in the UK of course, but the benefit tends to be shorter waiting time, more comfortable rooms, nicer food. In purely medical terms the treatment won’t be better or more advanced. And the health insurance industry is different here* because of the context of the NHS.
(*This is not a judgment on its comparative morality.)
Can anyone think of another service pretty much everyone in the US must have that serves us so poorly? Is there anything that really compares to health insurance companies? I'm drawing a blank.
You've mentioned other things that suck, but it's possible that healthcare is the worst. Although I'd like to nominate the US government. It's a service we have to have, we can't avoid paying for it, and frankly, it's awful.
Considering all the ways that Big Business wants to kill us (polluting air and water, dangerous products, poisonous foods), the much-derided regulations of the FDA seem like pretty good things to me. Perhaps you trust profit-minded corporations to cut into their profits to benefit the health of the American populace more than I do.
Brian Thompson's death...probably won't even inspire politicians to create universal health care (which a majority of Americans do favor)
Politics has really been the dog that didn't bark throughout all of this.
Right, hence the reference to 'social banditry' upthread - which is usually a resort only when there's no other outlet for change.
The few times it does get brought into the discussion, even by supporters of the shooter, it's just as often as not from a conservative as a liberal/left perspective. "It's not fair they're persecuting Mangione, but letting illegals run amok" etc.
Or praising both Mangione and Perry (as I've seen from a lot on the right).
Private healthcare in the UK is a parasite on the NHS. It's lauded as 'more efficient' but the reason for all this efficiency is that private providers only do the more straightforward procedures. And if complications arise during your treatment they send you to the nearest NHS hospital, because they don't have A&E facilities at their hospitals. Too expensive.
Almost 70% of respondents said “denials for health care coverage by health insurance companies” shared “a great deal” or a “moderate amount” of responsibility. Sixty-seven per cent said “profits made by health insurance companies” shared “a great deal” or a “moderate amount” of responsibility.
You have to click on the link to the poll to see that 78% said the individual who shot him bears a great deal or a moderate amount of responsibility.
2) Brian Thompson's death serves no purpose--it doesn't get anyone's child their needed chemotherapy, and probably won't even inspire politicians to create universal health care (which a majority of Americans do favor).
I have a hard time seeing the US switching to universal public healthcare coverage within the near future. The ACA was an enormous overhaul of the system, and we're still having to defend that. The right would love nothing better than to dismantle the regulatory government created when FDR was president.
Considering all the ways that Big Business wants to kill us (polluting air and water, dangerous products, poisonous foods), the much-derided regulations of the FDA seem like pretty good things to me.
I think carceral and military industrial complex aside large parts of the federal system do work quite well (at least given the constraints under which they operate)
Can anyone think of another service pretty much everyone in the US must have that serves us so poorly? Is there anything that really compares to health insurance companies? I'm drawing a blank.
You've mentioned other things that suck, but it's possible that healthcare is the worst. Although I'd like to nominate the US government. It's a service we have to have, we can't avoid paying for it, and frankly, it's awful.
Medicare looks pretty awesome, though. Maybe just in comparison to private health insurance?
I will be starting on Medicare one year from now, and I’m both looking forward to it and trying to get my head around being old enough for Medicare.
That said, I’ve been on the same health insurance plan for 35 years, and beyond the rising premiums to cover my wife and kids, we really have had very few complaints. I can remember maybe once I’ve needed to appeal a denial. And there have been the providers we’ve needed to use who were out of network and so the cost to us was higher than it otherwise would have been. But we’ve never needed to forego treatment because insurance wouldn’t cover it. When I had a heart attack and bypass surgery, there were no problems. And when my daughter needed extended, out-of-the-ordinary treatment, she watched others around her seeking the same treatment get denied or cut-off by their insurance, while we had no problem.
To be clear, I do not take this as evidence that the US health care system isn’t broken. It is very much broken. To the contrary, I know that we have been really fortunate, and I do not take that for granted. We shouldn’t be an exception; everyone should have had what we’ve had.
Right, hence the reference to 'social banditry' upthread - which is usually a resort only when there's no other outlet for change.
That would seem to fit. I assume that, in a typical case, the supporters of social banditry aren't experiencing frustration with the political process, but rather, aren't even aware that any political process could exist to solve their problems.
Which is really the impression I get from most of the pro-Adjustor mob. They put the blame entirely on the CEOs, not the politicians, because they have no sense that this is something politicians could even be involved in.
Or praising both Mangione and Perry (as I've seen from a lot on the right).
I didn’t say that I believed in the equivalency of those two things. Just that two wrongs don’t make a right. There can be all different levels and kinds of wrongness.
So, if there's no Heaven or Hell, only Purgatory, and gunning down a law-abiding health-care exec will get you X years in Purgatory, what percentage of X will the health-exec get for using the types of questionable but legal methods employed by Brian Thompson to minimize payouts?
I don’t know. I believe in Heaven and Hell. Where he ultimately winds up is between him and God.
That may make you feel better, because you can punish him in your mind all you like, but for those who don't believe in an afterlife, it's completely unattractive, and not at all Just in the here and now.
Or praising both Mangione and Perry (as I've seen from a lot on the right).
Who do you mean by "Perry" here? Rick?
Daniel - and it occurs to me that this conjunction is actually more worrying than any support for Mangione.
Ah, yes. Okay. Indeed, I've also seen the Adjuster linked as a supposed spiritual confrere of various heroes in the right-wing pantheon.
In fairness, to the extent that people are assuming the note published by Ken Klippenstein reflects the views of the shooter, it was almost entirely apolitical, and thus pretty much inviting the reader to impose whatever ideological interpretation they want on the statement.
I believe in hell too, but it is empty. I think this has been discussed elsewhere and does not apply directly to the murder of Brian Thompson.
I think if we forget the occupation of Brian Thompson and just focus on the man, this discussion would be somewhat different. Here is the obituary that appeared in the Minneapolis Tribune. Brian's kids were 19 and 16 at the time of their dad's death. How would you deal with their loss? The family was just entering the launching phase of the family cycle. Will the death of their father affect what the boys will be doing into their respective careers and social life? Brian's wife, Paulette, is only 51. Assuming they had a good relationship, how is his death going to impact her? Oh, sure, the family is well off and will be provided for, but they have all experienced a severe loss. Let's not forget that.
The answer to that kind of thing every single time is that thousands of people suffer and die because of UnitedHealthcare, and they have families too. But there is no expensive hunt for their killers. No one goes on trial for their needless deaths.
I didn’t say that I believed in the equivalency of those two things. Just that two wrongs don’t make a right. There can be all different levels and kinds of wrongness.
So, if there's no Heaven or Hell, only Purgatory, and gunning down a law-abiding health-care exec will get you X years in Purgatory, what percentage of X will the health-exec get for using the types of questionable but legal methods employed by Brian Thompson to minimize payouts?
I don’t know. I believe in Heaven and Hell. Where he ultimately winds up is between him and God.
That may make you feel better, because you can punish him in your mind all you like, but for those who don't believe in an afterlife, it's completely unattractive, and not at all Just in the here and now.
@stetson specifically asked me about the relative afterlife punishments of the killer and the CEO in Purgatory, so I answered.
It's not about feelings, it's not about imagining Divine punishment for him, and it's not about wishing Hell on him or anyone else. I just answered the question.
I believe in hell too, but it is empty. I think this has been discussed elsewhere and does not apply directly to the murder of Brian Thompson.
I think if we forget the occupation of Brian Thompson and just focus on the man, this discussion would be somewhat different. Here is the obituary that appeared in the Minneapolis Tribune. Brian's kids were 19 and 16 at the time of their dad's death. How would you deal with their loss? The family was just entering the launching phase of the family cycle. Will the death of their father affect what the boys will be doing into their respective careers and social life? Brian's wife, Paulette, is only 51. Assuming they had a good relationship, how is his death going to impact her? Oh, sure, the family is well off and will be provided for, but they have all experienced a severe loss. Let's not forget that.
One thing that has occurred to me, though not neccessarily in a sympathetic way, is that it must be a bit of an...experience, shall we say, to have your otherwise obscure father murdered out of the blue, and then see that the response from huge sections of the population is enraptured joy.
(I HAVE seen numerous claims that Thompson was a horrible father and totally estranged from his kids, but I suspect this might just be revelers trying to justify tap-dancing on his grave.)
I believe in hell too, but it is empty. I think this has been discussed elsewhere and does not apply directly to the murder of Brian Thompson.
I think if we forget the occupation of Brian Thompson and just focus on the man, this discussion would be somewhat different. Here is the obituary that appeared in the Minneapolis Tribune. Brian's kids were 19 and 16 at the time of their dad's death. How would you deal with their loss? The family was just entering the launching phase of the family cycle. Will the death of their father affect what the boys will be doing into their respective careers and social life? Brian's wife, Paulette, is only 51. Assuming they had a good relationship, how is his death going to impact her? Oh, sure, the family is well off and will be provided for, but they have all experienced a severe loss. Let's not forget that.
One thing that has occurred to me, though not neccessarily in a sympathetic way, is that it must be a bit of an...experience, shall we say, to have your otherwise obscure father murdered out of the blue, and then see that the response from huge sections of the population is enraptured joy.
(I HAVE seen numerous claims that Thompson was a horrible father and totally estranged from his kids, but I suspect this might just be revelers trying to justify tap-dancing on his grave.)
I was only going by what the obituary said. After I posted I did see some negative reports about his family life. I understand most obituaries are written by grieving families who want to put their dearly beloved in the best light possible. Fact is, negative innuendo sells papers as much as blood.
But, going with the reports he was estranged from his family, just think about how painful his lose could be. No chance to make peace with your dad. Living with guilt over the relationship. Could be more fuel for a lifelong fire.
I believe in hell too, but it is empty. I think this has been discussed elsewhere and does not apply directly to the murder of Brian Thompson.
I think if we forget the occupation of Brian Thompson and just focus on the man, this discussion would be somewhat different. Here is the obituary that appeared in the Minneapolis Tribune. Brian's kids were 19 and 16 at the time of their dad's death. How would you deal with their loss? The family was just entering the launching phase of the family cycle. Will the death of their father affect what the boys will be doing into their respective careers and social life? Brian's wife, Paulette, is only 51. Assuming they had a good relationship, how is his death going to impact her? Oh, sure, the family is well off and will be provided for, but they have all experienced a severe loss. Let's not forget that.
One thing that has occurred to me, though not neccessarily in a sympathetic way, is that it must be a bit of an...experience, shall we say, to have your otherwise obscure father murdered out of the blue, and then see that the response from huge sections of the population is enraptured joy.
(I HAVE seen numerous claims that Thompson was a horrible father and totally estranged from his kids, but I suspect this might just be revelers trying to justify tap-dancing on his grave.)
I was only going by what the obituary said. After I posted I did see some negative reports about his family life. I understand most obituaries are written by grieving families who want to put their dearly beloved in the best light possible. Fact is, negative innuendo sells papers as much as blood.
But, going with the reports he was estranged from his family, just think about how painful his lose could be. No chance to make peace with your dad. Living with guilt over the relationship. Could be more fuel for a lifelong fire.
But, going with the reports he was estranged from his family, just think about how painful his lose could be. No chance to make peace with your dad. Living with guilt over the relationship. Could be more fuel for a lifelong fire.
And again, the thousands of people UnitedHealthcare has killed had grieving families too. Where is all the care for them?
Private healthcare in the UK is a parasite on the NHS. It's lauded as 'more efficient' but the reason for all this efficiency is that private providers only do the more straightforward procedures. And if complications arise during your treatment they send you to the nearest NHS hospital, because they don't have A&E facilities at their hospitals. Too expensive.
Private healthcare is certainly more efficient in the sense that you can wait months for a consultation on the NHS, or you can pay and get your straightforward procedure completed much faster. That is, after all, why a lot of people who pay, pay.
Whether it is more efficient in terms of allocation of resources is a different question. What are the actual real costs for let's say a hip replacement on the NHS vs private?
Considering all the ways that Big Business wants to kill us (polluting air and water, dangerous products, poisonous foods), the much-derided regulations of the FDA seem like pretty good things to me. Perhaps you trust profit-minded corporations to cut into their profits to benefit the health of the American populace more than I do.
I think you misunderstand. There are lots of good things about regulations, and about regulators. The government we have doesn't suck more than not having a government - it just sucks a lot more than any hypothetical less dysfunctional government.
It's routine for the government to operate for months every year without an actual budget, because a bunch of idiots in DC are comparing penis size. The idiots in question pass a continuing resolution in order that the bills can still be paid, but with no promise that when, half way through the year when they actually get around to agreeing a budget, it will have any relationship to the numbers in the continuing resolution. That's a ridiculous way to attempt to run anything, and creates a ridiculous waste of time and money with everyone in the government agencies reacting to and trying to accommodate all the nonsense.
But, going with the reports he was estranged from his family, just think about how painful his lose could be. No chance to make peace with your dad. Living with guilt over the relationship. Could be more fuel for a lifelong fire.
And again, the thousands of people UnitedHealthcare has killed had grieving families too. Where is all the care for them?
I didn’t say that I believed in the equivalency of those two things. Just that two wrongs don’t make a right. There can be all different levels and kinds of wrongness.
So, if there's no Heaven or Hell, only Purgatory, and gunning down a law-abiding health-care exec will get you X years in Purgatory, what percentage of X will the health-exec get for using the types of questionable but legal methods employed by Brian Thompson to minimize payouts?
I don’t know. I believe in Heaven and Hell. Where he ultimately winds up is between him and God.
That may make you feel better, because you can punish him in your mind all you like, but for those who don't believe in an afterlife, it's completely unattractive, and not at all Just in the here and now.
@stetson specifically asked me about the relative afterlife punishments of the killer and the CEO in Purgatory, so I answered.
It's not about feelings, it's not about imagining Divine punishment for him, and it's not about wishing Hell on him or anyone else. I just answered the question.
Just saw an absolutely abysmal entry in the bourgeois-hectoring department, from Fox News.
Much like the usual crap, but with a typically conservative anti-youth slant(because 41% of millenials etc). And, of course, somebody just HAD to go and say it was connected to kids de-sensitised by violent video games.
Yeah, no. Setting aside the debate about the overall "gaming = violence" hypothesis...
I haven't played a computer game since the Atari era in the early 80s(with a brief relapse into arcade games circa 1990), but I'm not responding to the Thompson assassination with the same emotional discomfort that hits me when I read about the murder of lawful individuals by random strangers.
And much as I'd like to turn this into an anti-Fox rant, it wasn't much worse than similar performances coming out of centrist media, in the USA and elsewhere, though somewhat more maudlin. The hostess(to name her archetype) said something about worrying trends in society, but ended hopefully with "It can turned around, of that I'm certain."
But, going with the reports he was estranged from his family, just think about how painful his lose could be. No chance to make peace with your dad. Living with guilt over the relationship. Could be more fuel for a lifelong fire.
And again, the thousands of people UnitedHealthcare has killed had grieving families too. Where is all the care for them?
Give me a source about how many people have died because of being denied a claim.
Not meant to answer the above inquiry of @Gramps49, because I came here to post this before seeing his post. But interesting YouTube video from NewsNation posted earlier this evening...
UnitedHealthcare taught us ways to deny claims: Former employee
Just saw an absolutely abysmal entry in the bourgeois-hectoring department, from Fox News.
Much like the usual crap, but with a typically conservative anti-youth slant(because 41% of millenials etc). And, of course, somebody just HAD to go and say it was connected to kids de-sensitised by violent video games.
Yeah, no. Setting aside the debate about the overall "gaming = violence" hypothesis...
I haven't played a computer game since the Atari era in the early 80s(with a brief relapse into arcade games circa 1990), but I'm not responding to the Thompson assassination with the same emotional discomfort that hits me when I read about the murder of lawful individuals by random strangers.
And much as I'd like to turn this into an anti-Fox rant, it wasn't much worse than similar performances coming out of centrist media, in the USA and elsewhere, though somewhat more maudlin. The hostess(to name her archetype) said something about worrying trends in society, but ended hopefully with "It can turned around, of that I'm certain."
Well, FoxNews flat-out worships the U.S. Military, and the U.S. Military is actively, heavily recruiting gamers to facilitate it's drone and ROV programs. Put a service uniform on it and they (FoxNews/MAGA) don't mind a bit. Or, if it's Kyle Rittenhouse.
But, going with the reports he was estranged from his family, just think about how painful his lose could be. No chance to make peace with your dad. Living with guilt over the relationship. Could be more fuel for a lifelong fire.
And again, the thousands of people UnitedHealthcare has killed had grieving families too. Where is all the care for them?
Give me a source about how many people have died because of being denied a claim.
This will have to wait a few days, as I'm traveling and it's too hard to do stuff like this on my phone, but I'm curious as to whether you're disputing that health insurance denials kill people or just want evidence because evidence is good.
But, going with the reports he was estranged from his family, just think about how painful his lose could be. No chance to make peace with your dad. Living with guilt over the relationship. Could be more fuel for a lifelong fire.
And again, the thousands of people UnitedHealthcare has killed had grieving families too. Where is all the care for them?
Give me a source about how many people have died because of being denied a claim.
A 2022 member survey conducted by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, a network of 50,000 cancer professionals, found that 42% of prior authorizations were delayed by more than one business day and that 14% of the delays resulted in a “serious adverse event for a patient.”
The oncologists described the serious adverse event as “delay of treatment” 96% of the time, “denial of treatment” 87% of the time, “disease progression” 80% of the time, and “loss of life” 36% of the time.
But, going with the reports he was estranged from his family, just think about how painful his lose could be. No chance to make peace with your dad. Living with guilt over the relationship. Could be more fuel for a lifelong fire.
And again, the thousands of people UnitedHealthcare has killed had grieving families too. Where is all the care for them?
Give me a source about how many people have died because of being denied a claim.
A 2022 member survey conducted by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, a network of 50,000 cancer professionals, found that 42% of prior authorizations were delayed by more than one business day and that 14% of the delays resulted in a “serious adverse event for a patient.”
The oncologists described the serious adverse event as “delay of treatment” 96% of the time, “denial of treatment” 87% of the time, “disease progression” 80% of the time, and “loss of life” 36% of the time.
Still does not give me raw numbers. How many people had delay of treatment. How many died because of that delay? I don't think anyone knows. I certainly cannot find good numbers.
I should also point out even with universal coverage people still die while awaiting treatment. For instance, it is estimatedupwards of 121,000 people died while awaiting treatment in 2022. The NHS also denies coverage for many of the same reasons why American insurers deny coverage: lack of medical necessity (ie elective surgeries); availability of alternative treatments; experimental or unproven treatments; out of network treaments; noncompliance with guidelines.
Time does not allow me to review other national universal health insurance programs. "
But, I would admit the NHS does have more power to negotiate the cost of drugs and treatments in the United Kingdom than insurance companies in the US have.
Well gosh, @Gramps49, I guess we’ll have to move ahead without raw numbers for you. Did you suspect no one knows estimated numbers of denied care deaths before you demanded statistics here, or after? And now you’re pressed for time to suss it out for yourself/us? My goodness.
Dying while waiting for approved treatment is different than having treatment denied by a third or fourth party as it happens here in the U.S. That issue is magnified by the fact that we have for-profit health insurance companies. It’s arguable that we’d have less of an issue with deaths while waiting for care b/c of the massive for-profit nature of the rest of our healthcare system. I dunno, of course, but that’s what I’d guess.
Just saw an absolutely abysmal entry in the bourgeois-hectoring department, from Fox News.
Much like the usual crap, but with a typically conservative anti-youth slant(because 41% of millenials etc). And, of course, somebody just HAD to go and say it was connected to kids de-sensitised by violent video games.
Yeah, no. Setting aside the debate about the overall "gaming = violence" hypothesis...
I haven't played a computer game since the Atari era in the early 80s(with a brief relapse into arcade games circa 1990), but I'm not responding to the Thompson assassination with the same emotional discomfort that hits me when I read about the murder of lawful individuals by random strangers.
And much as I'd like to turn this into an anti-Fox rant, it wasn't much worse than similar performances coming out of centrist media, in the USA and elsewhere, though somewhat more maudlin. The hostess(to name her archetype) said something about worrying trends in society, but ended hopefully with "It can turned around, of that I'm certain."
Well, FoxNews flat-out worships the U.S. Military, and the U.S. Military is actively, heavily recruiting gamers to facilitate it's drone and ROV programs. Put a service uniform on it and they (FoxNews/MAGA) don't mind a bit.
I don't watch a lotta Fox myself, so am largely guesstimating about their position on various topics. But one of those guesstimates would be that they have aired at least some amount of apologia for DJT's recurring putdowns of dead soldiers.
Overall, I'd suspect that they have a pretty transactional attitude toward army-worship. On the issue of video games specifically, I know there has been whatever degree of tension in fundie-evangelical circles between erudite Narniacs and home-schoolers who see demonic influence in any supernatural fairy tale. I'd wager that the moral incongruity of the military-gaming alliance crosses the mind of a few soccer-parents from time to time, but without provoking much organized outrage, for a variety of reasons.
Fans of humane and progressive penology will be pleased to hear reports that, all things considered, Luigi Mangione is enjoying a splendid time in the Metropolitan Detention Center.
Fans of humane and progressive penology will be pleased to hear reports that, all things considered, Luigi Mangione is enjoying a splendid time in the Metropolitan Detention Center.
When I said I did not have the time to look at other universal programs, I was pressed for time to go to church. Nonetheless, my point is that no health care insurance programs, private or public, is perfect. People are still dying. Even if we could get Universal Health Care coverage like the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada or elsewhere people are going to die because they could not get needed health care in time.
Fans of humane and progressive penology will be pleased to hear reports that, all things considered, Luigi Mangione is enjoying a splendid time in the Metropolitan Detention Center.
Thanks. But I was not being serious in addressing "[f]ans of humane and progressive penology". It was meant as a sarcastically flowery description of those members of the public evincing such earnest concern for Mangione's welfare.
And my "all things considered" was an acknowledgement that prison is not a good place to be. But the reports I'd heard about his treatment being better than average seem backed up by the attorney in your CNN video saying "he'll be subject to a lot less dangers" in the special unit he's likely to be inhabiting.
(Though what I had specifically heard was that the inmates were already treating him in a friendly and protective manner, with some speculation that the authorities were signaling through back-channels that he was to remain unharmed.)
When I said I did not have the time to look at other universal programs, I was pressed for time to go to church. Nonetheless, my point is that no health care insurance programs, private or public, is perfect. People are still dying. Even if we could get Universal Health Care coverage like the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada or elsewhere people are going to die because they could not get needed health care in time.
There is a difference between imperfect and actively malign. The NHS is starved of funds; the US system costs more as % GDP than any other developed country. If we spent as much on the NHS as the US spends on healthcare we could probably double or more the maximum spend per QALY and deploy enough staff and equipment to cut waiting times to a minimum.
When I said I did not have the time to look at other universal programs, I was pressed for time to go to church. Nonetheless, my point is that no health care insurance programs, private or public, is perfect. People are still dying. Even if we could get Universal Health Care coverage like the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada or elsewhere people are going to die because they could not get needed health care in time.
There is a difference between imperfect and actively malign. The NHS is starved of funds; the US system costs more as % GDP than any other developed country. If we spent as much on the NHS as the US spends on healthcare we could probably double or more the maximum spend per QALY and deploy enough staff and equipment to cut waiting times to a minimum.
I was going to say something similar. Also that pain killers etc to help cope until the operation will be available at probably no extra cost. Even if there was a charge it would be minimal and as it is a long term use you could get it cheaper by using the monthly scheme.
Private healthcare in the UK is a parasite on the NHS. It's lauded as 'more efficient' but the reason for all this efficiency is that private providers only do the more straightforward procedures. And if complications arise during your treatment they send you to the nearest NHS hospital, because they don't have A&E facilities at their hospitals. Too expensive.
Private healthcare is certainly more efficient in the sense that you can wait months for a consultation on the NHS, or you can pay and get your straightforward procedure completed much faster. That is, after all, why a lot of people who pay, pay.
Whether it is more efficient in terms of allocation of resources is a different question. What are the actual real costs for let's say a hip replacement on the NHS vs private?
When my father in law was tested for cancer, he chose to pay for private tests. Yes, he did get them a bit faster than he would have done on the NHS, but then he was passed back to the NHS for the actual treatment. There was a delay of several weeks in the start of his treatment, caused by the private provider not passing the results of the tests back to the NHS. It probably didn't have much effect on the outcome (his cancer was quite far advanced), but that was our experience of private healthcare.
If you are going to do a fair comparison of the cost of private vs. NHS procedures - hip replacement, whatever - you will have to include the cost to the NHS of fixing complications caused by private procedures, as I said above. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges. If we're being completely fair you should also factor in the cost of staff training, because most private healthcare staff will have been trained by the NHS.
When I said I did not have the time to look at other universal programs, I was pressed for time to go to church. Nonetheless, my point is that no health care insurance programs, private or public, is perfect. People are still dying. Even if we could get Universal Health Care coverage like the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada or elsewhere people are going to die because they could not get needed health care in time.
There is a difference between imperfect and actively malign. The NHS is starved of funds; the US system costs more as % GDP than any other developed country. If we spent as much on the NHS as the US spends on healthcare we could probably double or more the maximum spend per QALY and deploy enough staff and equipment to cut waiting times to a minimum.
Yeah, you are comparing the NHS 14 years into a Tory government which starved it of funds (from a situation in 2010 when it was deemed to be the most efficient health care service in the world, costing about half what the US system did by % of GDP).
Furthermore you have to consider more than just deaths. Bankruptcy due to medical debt is also exceedingly rare, as is going into debt to pay for routine treatment for chronic ailments like diabetes.
Conversely, here in the U.S., there are hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies every year. Upwards of 40% of all US bankruptcies are medical bill-related. Right now, it's estimated that US citizens have at least $220 billion in medical debt. It's a hell of a system.
When I said I did not have the time to look at other universal programs, I was pressed for time to go to church. Nonetheless, my point is that no health care insurance programs, private or public, is perfect. People are still dying. Even if we could get Universal Health Care coverage like the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada or elsewhere people are going to die because they could not get needed health care in time.
But are they dying simply to make shareholders a dirty buck? (Or 10 million or so of them a year for the dear departed CEO, Mr. Thompson, as I understand it.)
Because that’s the real issue, isn’t it? I think it’s fair to say that no one expects a perfect system with 100% positive outcomes. But when the reason people get claims denied, medications not covered, etc. boils down to “line must go up”, something is deeply wrong. It’s immoral and unjust.
(Full disclosure: I’ve had to battle UHC over — thankfully — non-life-threatening issues for my child, and have opinions on them not suitable for all audiences.)
2) Brian Thompson's death serves no purpose--it doesn't get anyone's child their needed chemotherapy, and probably won't even inspire politicians to create universal health care (which a majority of Americans do favor).
I have a hard time seeing the US switching to universal public healthcare coverage within the near future. The ACA was an enormous overhaul of the system, and we're still having to defend that. The right would love nothing better than to dismantle the regulatory government created when FDR was president. [/quote]
The ACA should have been called the Health Insurance Industry Preservation Act, because what it did was to subsidize an increasingly unsustainable business model.
I am told by acquaintances who spend their days dealing with health insurance, that preauthorization requests are going through much faster in the past couple of weeks than they used to, and denial rates seem to have decreased. Draw what conclusions you will.
I am told by acquaintances who spend their days dealing with health insurance, that preauthorization requests are going through much faster in the past couple of weeks than they used to, and denial rates seem to have decreased. Draw what conclusions you will.
If nothing else, I'd imagine that more than a few phone-jockeys in the claims departments have been getting a little antsy about using the word "deny" or its variants in their dealings with customers.
Comments
It occurs to me that for-profit health-insurers might, for a lotta people, really hit the combustible overlap between "morally questionable" and "really f*****g annoying".
Yeah, sure, the Wall Street investment-banker probably has some connection with upholding the economic-political system that makes predatory insurance companies a reality, but he's not the one you're tearfully pleading with on the phone while your little daughter waits to see if her chemotherapy can go forward.
(Never really thought of any of this before, but I would speculate that the currently ambience of, shall we say, "understanding" surrpunding the Adjustor's motivations and methods is not one that would be seen in the hypothetical event of some captain of another industry being shot dead on the street by a total stranger.)
Inside Edition has hosted the most pathetic of the media-moralism on this.
They've got another video about a comedian who prompted a "backlash", or some such term, with jokes about the Thompson shooting. And, from the clips, yeah, it looked like the guy might've been over-hamming it. But the only "backlash" they could find was in the "nervous" nature of the audience's laughter, and a couple of comments on social media along the lines of "Too soon, dude."
1) The health insurance industry is parasitic. It adds no value to anyone's health care, only extracts rents. And there is violence inherent in capitalism, concealed under a mask of law.
2) Brian Thompson's death serves no purpose--it doesn't get anyone's child their needed chemotherapy, and probably won't even inspire politicians to create universal health care (which a majority of Americans do favor). There is no justification for such a senseless killing, even if it is in some way understandable.
3) If it would have saved lives, it might have been justifiable. Hitler has been mentioned, as has Syria, and I don't hesitate to say that in 2011 there was a moral case to be made for assassinating Assad--tens of thousands of Syrians might still be alive if he'd been taken out at the beginning of the civil war.
Ends with a beefy ex-convict explaining that the prisoners in Mangione's jail communicate with each other through the air vents. Which sounds like something out of a swashbuckling adventure novel.
Politics has really been the dog that didn't bark throughout all of this. The few times it does get brought into the discussion, even by supporters of the shooter, it's just as often as not from a conservative as a liberal/left perspective. "It's not fair they're persecuting Mangione, but letting illegals run amok" etc.
In away you could see the UK’s NHS as being a not for profit insurance arrangement where premiums are charged according to ability to pay and care is provided according to need. Private health insurance exists in the UK of course, but the benefit tends to be shorter waiting time, more comfortable rooms, nicer food. In purely medical terms the treatment won’t be better or more advanced. And the health insurance industry is different here* because of the context of the NHS.
(*This is not a judgment on its comparative morality.)
Considering all the ways that Big Business wants to kill us (polluting air and water, dangerous products, poisonous foods), the much-derided regulations of the FDA seem like pretty good things to me. Perhaps you trust profit-minded corporations to cut into their profits to benefit the health of the American populace more than I do.
Right, hence the reference to 'social banditry' upthread - which is usually a resort only when there's no other outlet for change.
Or praising both Mangione and Perry (as I've seen from a lot on the right).
The Guardian reports on a poll conducted by the University of Chicago on shared blame for the murder:
You have to click on the link to the poll to see that 78% said the individual who shot him bears a great deal or a moderate amount of responsibility.
I have a hard time seeing the US switching to universal public healthcare coverage within the near future. The ACA was an enormous overhaul of the system, and we're still having to defend that. The right would love nothing better than to dismantle the regulatory government created when FDR was president.
I think carceral and military industrial complex aside large parts of the federal system do work quite well (at least given the constraints under which they operate)
That said, I’ve been on the same health insurance plan for 35 years, and beyond the rising premiums to cover my wife and kids, we really have had very few complaints. I can remember maybe once I’ve needed to appeal a denial. And there have been the providers we’ve needed to use who were out of network and so the cost to us was higher than it otherwise would have been. But we’ve never needed to forego treatment because insurance wouldn’t cover it. When I had a heart attack and bypass surgery, there were no problems. And when my daughter needed extended, out-of-the-ordinary treatment, she watched others around her seeking the same treatment get denied or cut-off by their insurance, while we had no problem.
To be clear, I do not take this as evidence that the US health care system isn’t broken. It is very much broken. To the contrary, I know that we have been really fortunate, and I do not take that for granted. We shouldn’t be an exception; everyone should have had what we’ve had.
That would seem to fit. I assume that, in a typical case, the supporters of social banditry aren't experiencing frustration with the political process, but rather, aren't even aware that any political process could exist to solve their problems.
Which is really the impression I get from most of the pro-Adjustor mob. They put the blame entirely on the CEOs, not the politicians, because they have no sense that this is something politicians could even be involved in.
Who do you mean by "Perry" here? Rick?
Daniel - and it occurs to me that this conjunction is actually more worrying than any support for Mangione.
That may make you feel better, because you can punish him in your mind all you like, but for those who don't believe in an afterlife, it's completely unattractive, and not at all Just in the here and now.
Ah, yes. Okay. Indeed, I've also seen the Adjuster linked as a supposed spiritual confrere of various heroes in the right-wing pantheon.
In fairness, to the extent that people are assuming the note published by Ken Klippenstein reflects the views of the shooter, it was almost entirely apolitical, and thus pretty much inviting the reader to impose whatever ideological interpretation they want on the statement.
I think if we forget the occupation of Brian Thompson and just focus on the man, this discussion would be somewhat different. Here is the obituary that appeared in the Minneapolis Tribune. Brian's kids were 19 and 16 at the time of their dad's death. How would you deal with their loss? The family was just entering the launching phase of the family cycle. Will the death of their father affect what the boys will be doing into their respective careers and social life? Brian's wife, Paulette, is only 51. Assuming they had a good relationship, how is his death going to impact her? Oh, sure, the family is well off and will be provided for, but they have all experienced a severe loss. Let's not forget that.
@stetson specifically asked me about the relative afterlife punishments of the killer and the CEO in Purgatory, so I answered.
It's not about feelings, it's not about imagining Divine punishment for him, and it's not about wishing Hell on him or anyone else. I just answered the question.
One thing that has occurred to me, though not neccessarily in a sympathetic way, is that it must be a bit of an...experience, shall we say, to have your otherwise obscure father murdered out of the blue, and then see that the response from huge sections of the population is enraptured joy.
(I HAVE seen numerous claims that Thompson was a horrible father and totally estranged from his kids, but I suspect this might just be revelers trying to justify tap-dancing on his grave.)
I was only going by what the obituary said. After I posted I did see some negative reports about his family life. I understand most obituaries are written by grieving families who want to put their dearly beloved in the best light possible. Fact is, negative innuendo sells papers as much as blood.
But, going with the reports he was estranged from his family, just think about how painful his lose could be. No chance to make peace with your dad. Living with guilt over the relationship. Could be more fuel for a lifelong fire.
:votive:
Private healthcare is certainly more efficient in the sense that you can wait months for a consultation on the NHS, or you can pay and get your straightforward procedure completed much faster. That is, after all, why a lot of people who pay, pay.
Whether it is more efficient in terms of allocation of resources is a different question. What are the actual real costs for let's say a hip replacement on the NHS vs private?
I think you misunderstand. There are lots of good things about regulations, and about regulators. The government we have doesn't suck more than not having a government - it just sucks a lot more than any hypothetical less dysfunctional government.
It's routine for the government to operate for months every year without an actual budget, because a bunch of idiots in DC are comparing penis size. The idiots in question pass a continuing resolution in order that the bills can still be paid, but with no promise that when, half way through the year when they actually get around to agreeing a budget, it will have any relationship to the numbers in the continuing resolution. That's a ridiculous way to attempt to run anything, and creates a ridiculous waste of time and money with everyone in the government agencies reacting to and trying to accommodate all the nonsense.
:votive:
You're not in anyone's crosshairs, @ChastMastr.
"Justice delayed is justice denied."
Much like the usual crap, but with a typically conservative anti-youth slant(because 41% of millenials etc). And, of course, somebody just HAD to go and say it was connected to kids de-sensitised by violent video games.
Yeah, no. Setting aside the debate about the overall "gaming = violence" hypothesis...
I haven't played a computer game since the Atari era in the early 80s(with a brief relapse into arcade games circa 1990), but I'm not responding to the Thompson assassination with the same emotional discomfort that hits me when I read about the murder of lawful individuals by random strangers.
And much as I'd like to turn this into an anti-Fox rant, it wasn't much worse than similar performances coming out of centrist media, in the USA and elsewhere, though somewhat more maudlin. The hostess(to name her archetype) said something about worrying trends in society, but ended hopefully with "It can turned around, of that I'm certain."
Give me a source about how many people have died because of being denied a claim.
UnitedHealthcare taught us ways to deny claims: Former employee
That's it. Thanks.
I can't do links on my phone, but that video title is verbatim, so you can just copy/paste it into YouTube, or type it out long-hand.
Well, FoxNews flat-out worships the U.S. Military, and the U.S. Military is actively, heavily recruiting gamers to facilitate it's drone and ROV programs. Put a service uniform on it and they (FoxNews/MAGA) don't mind a bit. Or, if it's Kyle Rittenhouse.
This will have to wait a few days, as I'm traveling and it's too hard to do stuff like this on my phone, but I'm curious as to whether you're disputing that health insurance denials kill people or just want evidence because evidence is good.
Here’s an article with some cancer death statistics: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/-lived-health-insurance-companies-deny-cancer-care-patients-rcna182611
A 2022 member survey conducted by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, a network of 50,000 cancer professionals, found that 42% of prior authorizations were delayed by more than one business day and that 14% of the delays resulted in a “serious adverse event for a patient.”
The oncologists described the serious adverse event as “delay of treatment” 96% of the time, “denial of treatment” 87% of the time, “disease progression” 80% of the time, and “loss of life” 36% of the time.
Still does not give me raw numbers. How many people had delay of treatment. How many died because of that delay? I don't think anyone knows. I certainly cannot find good numbers.
I should also point out even with universal coverage people still die while awaiting treatment. For instance, it is estimated upwards of 121,000 people died while awaiting treatment in 2022. The NHS also denies coverage for many of the same reasons why American insurers deny coverage: lack of medical necessity (ie elective surgeries); availability of alternative treatments; experimental or unproven treatments; out of network treaments; noncompliance with guidelines.
Time does not allow me to review other national universal health insurance programs. "
But, I would admit the NHS does have more power to negotiate the cost of drugs and treatments in the United Kingdom than insurance companies in the US have.
Dying while waiting for approved treatment is different than having treatment denied by a third or fourth party as it happens here in the U.S. That issue is magnified by the fact that we have for-profit health insurance companies. It’s arguable that we’d have less of an issue with deaths while waiting for care b/c of the massive for-profit nature of the rest of our healthcare system. I dunno, of course, but that’s what I’d guess.
I don't watch a lotta Fox myself, so am largely guesstimating about their position on various topics. But one of those guesstimates would be that they have aired at least some amount of apologia for DJT's recurring putdowns of dead soldiers.
Overall, I'd suspect that they have a pretty transactional attitude toward army-worship. On the issue of video games specifically, I know there has been whatever degree of tension in fundie-evangelical circles between erudite Narniacs and home-schoolers who see demonic influence in any supernatural fairy tale. I'd wager that the moral incongruity of the military-gaming alliance crosses the mind of a few soccer-parents from time to time, but without provoking much organized outrage, for a variety of reasons.
Oh?
When I said I did not have the time to look at other universal programs, I was pressed for time to go to church. Nonetheless, my point is that no health care insurance programs, private or public, is perfect. People are still dying. Even if we could get Universal Health Care coverage like the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada or elsewhere people are going to die because they could not get needed health care in time.
Thanks. But I was not being serious in addressing "[f]ans of humane and progressive penology". It was meant as a sarcastically flowery description of those members of the public evincing such earnest concern for Mangione's welfare.
And my "all things considered" was an acknowledgement that prison is not a good place to be. But the reports I'd heard about his treatment being better than average seem backed up by the attorney in your CNN video saying "he'll be subject to a lot less dangers" in the special unit he's likely to be inhabiting.
(Though what I had specifically heard was that the inmates were already treating him in a friendly and protective manner, with some speculation that the authorities were signaling through back-channels that he was to remain unharmed.)
There is a difference between imperfect and actively malign. The NHS is starved of funds; the US system costs more as % GDP than any other developed country. If we spent as much on the NHS as the US spends on healthcare we could probably double or more the maximum spend per QALY and deploy enough staff and equipment to cut waiting times to a minimum.
I was going to say something similar. Also that pain killers etc to help cope until the operation will be available at probably no extra cost. Even if there was a charge it would be minimal and as it is a long term use you could get it cheaper by using the monthly scheme.
When my father in law was tested for cancer, he chose to pay for private tests. Yes, he did get them a bit faster than he would have done on the NHS, but then he was passed back to the NHS for the actual treatment. There was a delay of several weeks in the start of his treatment, caused by the private provider not passing the results of the tests back to the NHS. It probably didn't have much effect on the outcome (his cancer was quite far advanced), but that was our experience of private healthcare.
If you are going to do a fair comparison of the cost of private vs. NHS procedures - hip replacement, whatever - you will have to include the cost to the NHS of fixing complications caused by private procedures, as I said above. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges. If we're being completely fair you should also factor in the cost of staff training, because most private healthcare staff will have been trained by the NHS.
Yeah, you are comparing the NHS 14 years into a Tory government which starved it of funds (from a situation in 2010 when it was deemed to be the most efficient health care service in the world, costing about half what the US system did by % of GDP).
Furthermore you have to consider more than just deaths. Bankruptcy due to medical debt is also exceedingly rare, as is going into debt to pay for routine treatment for chronic ailments like diabetes.
But are they dying simply to make shareholders a dirty buck? (Or 10 million or so of them a year for the dear departed CEO, Mr. Thompson, as I understand it.)
Because that’s the real issue, isn’t it? I think it’s fair to say that no one expects a perfect system with 100% positive outcomes. But when the reason people get claims denied, medications not covered, etc. boils down to “line must go up”, something is deeply wrong. It’s immoral and unjust.
(Full disclosure: I’ve had to battle UHC over — thankfully — non-life-threatening issues for my child, and have opinions on them not suitable for all audiences.)
I have a hard time seeing the US switching to universal public healthcare coverage within the near future. The ACA was an enormous overhaul of the system, and we're still having to defend that. The right would love nothing better than to dismantle the regulatory government created when FDR was president. [/quote]
The ACA should have been called the Health Insurance Industry Preservation Act, because what it did was to subsidize an increasingly unsustainable business model.
I am told by acquaintances who spend their days dealing with health insurance, that preauthorization requests are going through much faster in the past couple of weeks than they used to, and denial rates seem to have decreased. Draw what conclusions you will.
If nothing else, I'd imagine that more than a few phone-jockeys in the claims departments have been getting a little antsy about using the word "deny" or its variants in their dealings with customers.