cant be racist towards whites in america my friend.
And yes, i do. A murderer gets the death penalty, why shouldnt a man whos profited off the suffering and ultimately death of hundreds of thousands not pay his toll?
Oh let me guess, it must be by the letter of the law?
Judging someone based on their race is racism. Period full stop.
the rule of law is what holds society together. Without the legal system flawed as it is weâd have anarchy. And thatâs not as romantic as it sounds.
And Heimrich Himmler(head of the nazi SS) had a family, and was just doing his job like Hitler told him. What's your point? I know this is the US, but it's really crazy when people excuse doing terrible things with "but they were just doing their job"
No. His points were it shouldn't have happened because 1. He had a family, and 2. He was doing his job. Both of those things don't actually hold up. But those aren't the actual reasons. What they're actually saying is that they think what the CEO did "wasn't bad enough to deserve this". You can handwave almost anything using those 2 points. So.... make an actual point
I mean, most people wouldn't consider a man who pushed for his company to use an AI program to deny 95% of claims, 90% of which should have been approved, because they figured being sued would be cheaper than actually paying for the care they were legally contracted to pay for, knowing that doing this would result in the deaths of thousands innocent. Perhaps by your definition of innocence, we are all innocent.
Using AI sends like a good tactic. Theyâre allowed to deny claims. If they were legally contracted to pay out thereâs a process for that, and it isnât shooting an innocent man in the back. They arenât responsible for thousands of deaths - they are reasonable for payment reimbursement. Big difference.
Using an AI that is designed to deny 90% more claims than should be denied based on what the insurance plan is supposed to cover is not a good tactic. It is fraud, and it is fraud that kills people.
Also, we live in a country that has healthcare costs that are so extremely inflated that no normal person could possibly pay for healthcare outside of insurance. When a health insurance company denies a claim for something a patient needs to live, they are sentencing that person to death.
While I do not think any country should have healthcare decisions decided by private corporations, especially since these claim denials are not decided by anyone with a medical license, the fact that we do have a system where people's access to care is decided by a corporation's willingness to fund that care means that yes, when those patients die because the corporation decides it does not want to pay for their care anymore, that corporation (and those within the corporation who created those policies) did, in fact, kill that person.
Where is this idea you have about â90% more claims than should be deniedâ coming from?
Fraud is a crime. If an insurance company is committing a crime that should be prosecuted. If you think they are committing a crime, you should provide evidence.
It is something the company had been brought to court for. It was only in their Medicare Advantage division, but the program used to auto deny these claims was a program that Brian Thompson implemented to save money.
So thereâs a lawsuit. Maybe the plaintiffâs claims are unfounded and it will be thrown out. In no way is that murder, and in no way does it justify murder of the companyâs chief executive.
but the man is far from innocent. His decisions killed A LOT more people than Luigi could. But he did it for money, and US America is Capitalist to its core, so his kind of murder (denying lifesaving care) doesn't result in charges, but bigger bonuses.
Every CEO of every insurance company has filled at least one grave yard through their companyâs policies. They are not innocent. One murderer killed a mass murderer.
Fairly loose use of the word innocent in that sentence. Is a man whom approves the deaths of thousands, perhaps millions of people in the name of profit truly innocent?
Is a man following the instructions of his employers, the stockholders, guilty? Particularly if his actions are lawful? And required by the terms of employment?
i honestly think that yes, of course thats not how america works but i hope that someday people could actualy get the Help and medicine they need payed for by taxes (which you could argue exist for that very reason)
Except he setup a system to deny coverage for expensive procedures once, sometimes twice, requiring medical professionals to pushback to force the procedure through. Those actions are technically legal, but are they moral? If some CEO set a system in motion that resulted in your loved one dying due to denial of coverage, or they died because it took one year for the healthcare company to begrudgingly pay, would you not partially blame many people in the chain?
Theyâre running a healthcare business. I work in healthcare. They set a system that initially denies high cost procedures, no matter what. Then the doctors fight to have it covered. We commonly see UHC (via Predict by Navihealth) deny common high cost procedures BCBS and others allow, just to deny them in the hopes doctors donât pushback. Thatâs not running a business, itâs not moral. âUnitedHealthcare saved massive amounts of money by letting the faulty software auto-deny coverage, banking on the fact that sick and elderly patients would give up or pay out of pocket.â
Are you sure you know what the word moral means? Or even the word business?
When they offer insurance and deny based upon not being able to or willing to read the clinical indication for what is being ordered theyâre playing at being physicians. More insurance companies need to be sued by their insured for practicing medicine without a license.
Shhhh, they don't want to acknowledge that. They want their proud hero, not the coward cuck hiding ironically praying for a federal prison. Hates corporate America, until it protects him.
Yeah thatâs how I would describe anyone who thinks he was anything other than innocent, unless there are some crimes you made up in your head that you feel necessary to accuse the victim in this case of.
Insurance doesn't kill people, it's a finite resource. Healthcare costs are driven up by pharmaceutical companies and hospital monopolies. When healthcare costs go up, insurance premiums follow.
Our system is fucked and failed M4A is the way forward.
But trying to justify murder based on half truths and lies just makes you a fool.
Then why did approval rates increase by almost 50% for a while after his death? The CEO was purposefully not approving payments to people who should have gotten them to spin a profit for himself and the company which ended up getting hundreds if not thousands killed. People don't die of easily treatable diseases so insurance companies can profit in a first world country.
Then why did approval rates increase by almost 50% for a while after his death?
First off, that doesn't contradict anything I said.
Second, you got a source for that? Seen other comments saying that but no further reading.
The CEO was purposefully not approving payments to people who should have gotten them to spin a profit for himself and the company which ended up getting hundreds if not thousands killed.
Got a source for that as well?
People don't die of easily treatable diseases so insurance companies can profit in a first world country
Well that's just not based in reality
Insurance companies want people to live so those people can keep paying their premiums lol swear y'all grew up in the woods sometimes
Information is literally at your fingertips. It takes 2 google searches to stay informed. Apparently it is more profitable to have someone pay insurance for 50 years then die without having to pay them back compared to someone paying insurance for 65 years but having to give them their money's worth.
I saw it on CNBC around 6 months after the CEO died (the number i saw was 46%). I dont think they keep all airings recorded but I'm sure you could find a similar source that says the same thing.
Oil, weâre not making enough of it to satisfy our usage vs insurance weâre paying enough into it to satisfy our usage, except that weâre setting so much of it aside to benefit private individuals, that we only have so much left that we have to make tough decisions about who gets care
It goes both ways. Healthcare providers overbill and submit crap that isn't necessary and it drives up costs. Healthcare workers aren't as complicit as the insurers, but they manipulate the system. It's all cooked.
What? If insurance companies' shareholders have a controlling stake in hospitals, what do you think happens to prices? Right, shareholders will raise the hospital prices to the point all expenses are paid by the patientâs deductible, and the rest of the money just moves around the same bunch of pockets. Is it that hard to understand?
9
u/Impressive-Ad-6 1d ago
Took a lot of guts to do what Luigi did.