I'm not involved in private health insurance, being a Canadian. I can tell you, however, that the costs to me as a taxpayer are very high, and service is not timely.
I still don't think its good to shoot people to death in the streets. But I may just not get it, what with being Canadian.
Streetwiseguy said:I'm not involved in private health insurance, being a Canadian. I can tell you, however, that the costs to me as a taxpayer are very high, and service is not timely.
I still don't think its good to shoot people to death in the streets. But I may just not get it, what with being Canadian.
I know somebody here in Dallas who is having to wait 6 months to see a doctor under a privately managed Medicare Advantage plan. How long do you guys have to wait?
aircooled said:
(one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter / rebel / revolutionary?)
Many want want lower taxes... should they go kill a tax collector to make a point? (NOT SERIOUS BTW). Will people cheer for that?
Years ago I had a great history teacher named Mr. Horton. One of the things he was fond of saying is history is written by the winner. Both of the above comments remind me of the American Revolution. To the British, the Americans were terrorist. As far as the tax collectors maybe not killed but tar and feathering wasn't a joke.
Keith Tanner said:The problem the health insurance industry has is that they are directly affecting people - the damage is not abstract like "BP dumped millions of gallons of oil into a body of water a thousand miles from me". It's personal, and that's why there was such a lack of empathy for the victim. I really expected the shooter to have a dead or damaged loved one as the result of denied coverage. Many people do.
A few years ago, the taxi drivers in Ottawa were protesting Uber coming in and taking their jobs. They had the same problem - EVERYONE has a story about a Blue Line taxi running bikes off the road or behaving badly in traffic or being rude. So there was no sympathy for the taxi drivers at all. They'd burned all the possible good will at an individual level, one person at a time.
I saw a comment that referred to the psychology thought problem of "If you press this button, you will get $1 million, and someone far away that you don't know will die", basically saying the victim's career was pressing that button as often as possible. And that has consequences.
Without getting into personal politics, I will say that having read Industrial Society and its Future, the Port Huron Statement, Prairie Fire, and other such documents, I'm reasonably familiar with the mindsets and arguments associated with such actions as the Thompson assassination. But the comment quoted above reminded me, more than any of those, of a scene from one of the greatest films ever made, The Third Man (1949):
Streetwiseguy said:I'm not involved in private health insurance, being a Canadian. I can tell you, however, that the costs to me as a taxpayer are very high, and service is not timely.
I still don't think its good to shoot people to death in the streets. But I may just not get it, what with being Canadian.
Having lived with both systems - you're paying less than Americans are (roughly half as much on a per-capita basis), and your service is no slower.
I think this whole discussion is framed incorrectly. Let's fix it. The CEO wasn't murdered for denying health care. Health insurance is not healthcare. It's a means for paying for health care. Health care cannot be withheld, the patient can get whatever care they need. Paying for that healthcare is a separate issue, but in the end, it's just money. The CEO was murdered over money. So who thinks that is okay? And at what dollar amount is it okay to murder a person?
Separate issue- healthcare is materials, knowledge, and labor. Like pretty much every other product or form of labor, it's usually exchanged for money. Is it okay to murder the providers of said labor when you don't want to pay? Are there other goods and services where we should consider murdering the providers to bring costs down?
Edit: I'm surprised as he's a local kid. Didn't see that coming.
The guy has a Masters Degree in Engineering from the University of Pennsylvania. I'm sure in that career path that he would not have that much trouble paying deductibles. I don't think he is even sick. He is doing this for philosophical reasons or political reasons, not money. He admires the Unibomber who is also well educated and violent.
As far as is it okay to murder somebody. Well it looks like he broke the law and he is now caught and going to jail, probably for a long time. He will pay the price for being wrong. On the other hand throughout history, revolutionaries who are on the losing side get the guillotine. Maybe he thought it was worth it.
Boost_Crazy said:I think this whole discussion is framed incorrectly. Let's fix it. The CEO wasn't murdered for denying health care. Health insurance is not healthcare. It's a means for paying for health care. Health care cannot be withheld, the patient can get whatever care they need. Paying for that healthcare is a separate issue, but in the end, it's just money. The CEO was murdered over money. So who thinks that is okay? And at what dollar amount is it okay to murder a person?
Separate issue- healthcare is materials, knowledge, and labor. Like pretty much every other product or form of labor, it's usually exchanged for money. Is it okay to murder the providers of said labor when you don't want to pay? Are there other goods and services where we should consider murdering the providers to bring costs down?
I disagree strongly.
Last I checked, healthcare debt is cited as the cause of about 2/3 of all homelessness in the states. Its not "just money"
In reply to aircooled :
If the guy they caught today is the shooter, he will go on trial and most likely be given the harshest sentence he's eligible for. They spent a lot of money finding him, they're not going to let it go to waste. That's how the system works. Had the person he shot not been the CEO of a major corporation, and wealthy, the system wouldn't really care which is kinda the point here. Regular people generally didn't care about the guy getting shot because we live under a different system. The insurance companies can't be held accountable for what they do to people but anyone that harms them will have to pay for their actions. Sure some people on the internet will talk about jury nullification but in reality the government will put together a solid case, and will find a dozen people that will look at the evidence objectively and find te shooter guilty.
Boost_Crazy said:Health insurance is not healthcare. It's a means for paying for health care.
Thank you. I just finished reading this thread and reviewing the meme thread before stepping in here to say exactly this.
In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :
Again, not so sure. He is going to have the mother of all GoFundMe's set up for his lawyer fees.
AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:Boost_Crazy said:Health insurance is not healthcare. It's a means for paying for health care.
Thank you. I just finished reading this thread and reviewing the meme thread before stepping in here to say exactly this.
And health insurance regularly denies claims for health care. Sure, health care might kick in a few days, weeks, or even months down the road. That doesn't help someone with cancer, though. That doesn't help someone who needs a transplant.
For all but the independently wealthy, saying "health insurance is not health care" is a distinction without a difference.
Mr_Asa said:Boost_Crazy said:I think this whole discussion is framed incorrectly. Let's fix it. The CEO wasn't murdered for denying health care. Health insurance is not healthcare. It's a means for paying for health care. Health care cannot be withheld, the patient can get whatever care they need. Paying for that healthcare is a separate issue, but in the end, it's just money. The CEO was murdered over money. So who thinks that is okay? And at what dollar amount is it okay to murder a person?
Separate issue- healthcare is materials, knowledge, and labor. Like pretty much every other product or form of labor, it's usually exchanged for money. Is it okay to murder the providers of said labor when you don't want to pay? Are there other goods and services where we should consider murdering the providers to bring costs down?
I disagree strongly.
Last I checked, healthcare debt is cited as the cause of about 2/3 of all homelessness in the states. Its not "just money"
When I go to get my car fixed I can call every shop in town, find out how much they charge for a diagnosis and how much they charge per hour and then decide where to go. When I am injured, the ambulance driver takes me where he damn well pleases where they then shove a paper in my hand to sign when I may actually be suffering from shock, they are absolutely opaque about what my charges will be and they won't exactly let me call other hospitals to see if they will do it cheaper. A few months ago Mrs. Snowdoggie needed an MRI and her doctor sent her to the most expensive place in town where they quoted her one price then after it was done, billed her another price that was twice as much. Then her insurance company paid only a part of it and the MRI place demanded she pay the rest or get her credit rating trashed and get sued for payment and so on. There is a cheap MRI place in town that advertises a low price and promises to take Medicare, all private insurance and even cash. I asked if I could drive here there next time and the admin at her doctor's office said that just isn't done. I later found out that the doctor had a sweethart deal to send all of his patents to the expensive place and was probably getting a kickback. The worst of it is that the amount she paid after the insurance paid a part was still more than the advertised total for the cheaper place.
Our system is so corrupt. This may be the first healthcare shooting but I know of one incident in a local hospital where a guy got his bill for heart surgery and took a dive out of the hospital window to his death. The system is corrupt. There needs to be reform. And these guys are operating in ways that would make a an illegal drug cartel blush.
Mr_Asa said:I disagree strongly.
Last I checked, healthcare debt is cited as the cause of about 2/3 of all homelessness in the states. Its not "just money"
I find that highly unlikely and maybe the result of a miss-interpretation of causality (healthcare debt is many times not even listed as a primary factor). There a clear need for health care in the homeless population, but that does not mean being in debt for it (or even being able to afford it) is the cause of the homelessness (my highlights trying to figure out where the 2/3 came from):
(CA has a disproportionate number of homeless, almost half of the US population, to it's a rather reasonable sample population)
...Compared to low-income populations with housing, people experiencing homelessness have a higher prevalence of acute and chronic physical and mental health conditions and higher mortality rates.16 This disparity has been attributed, in part, to evidence indicating that homelessness has direct and indirect deleterious impacts on health and that it interferes with access to primary health care.16,17
In a representative study of adults experiencing homelessness in California conducted during 2021–22, 45 percent of participants reported fair or poor physical health, 60 percent reported one or more chronic health conditions, and over a third reported difficulty with one or more activities of daily living.5 Homelessness among pregnant people is associated with increased risk for premature birth, low birthweight, and neonatal intensive care unit admission.18 A 2015–19 analysis found that people who experienced homelessness were more likely than those in an age- and gender-matched comparison group to report one or more chronic conditions, even once housed.19
People experiencing homelessness have elevated rates of mental health conditions and substance use disorders.20 The California study cited above found that 82 percent of homeless adults in California reported experiencing serious mental health symptoms sometime in their lives, and two-thirds reported current symptoms; depression and anxiety were the most common.5 Two-thirds reported ever using illicit drugs regularly or drinking heavily; 35 percent said that they were currently using illicit drugs regularly.....
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2023.01049
Flynlow said:I am really having a hard time processing all of it, and am glad we're having a discussion. I see the same thing, as well as the bias of the media coverage about both this case, and the recently passed election, and it is chillingly confirming how dangerous it is to let .001% of the population have such an outsized influence on the rest of us.
Some things I tried to Google to put numbers to this discussion, which is already uncomfortable, but I am trying to keep it fact based:
1. "How many people have been lethally shot in NYC since Brian Thompson?" Returns only news articles about the gunman's arrest. Can we expect whatever the number is to be investigated with the same fervor and resources? (We all know the answer already, and it breaks my heart)
2. "How many people die every year from Health Insurance denials of care?" I don't know the number, I do know it's not zero. I saw the post above talking about medical bills leading to homelessness. This isn't just a discussion about money, it's about societal values.
Mr_Asa said:In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :
Again, not so sure. He is going to have the mother of all GoFundMe's set up for his lawyer fees.
And their going to have the mother of all Insurance Companies Legal Department as well as the full force of the US Judicial System on their side.
In reply to aircooled : "(CA has a disproportionate number of homeless, almost half of the US population, to it's a rather reasonable sample population)"
The weather is nice. My brother died on the streets of Miami. He wasn't from there but the weather is nice.
Boost_Crazy said:I think this whole discussion is framed incorrectly. Let's fix it. The CEO wasn't murdered for denying health care. Health insurance is not healthcare. It's a means for paying for health care. Health care cannot be withheld, the patient can get whatever care they need. Paying for that healthcare is a separate issue, but in the end, it's just money. The CEO was murdered over money. So who thinks that is okay? And at what dollar amount is it okay to murder a person?
Separate issue- healthcare is materials, knowledge, and labor. Like pretty much every other product or form of labor, it's usually exchanged for money. Is it okay to murder the providers of said labor when you don't want to pay? Are there other goods and services where we should consider murdering the providers to bring costs down?
Well, it's certainly about the money. The number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the country is medical debt, and has been for years. Meanwhile, UHC, by revenue, is the seventh largest corporation in the world.
It appears the approach of minimizing access to care is the core of their business model.
UHC also owns the companies that provides the payments to the practices, the pharmacy benefit managers (they decide what medications will be covered), and the pharmacies that their customers are required to use. When their subsidiary that handled the payments to the practitioners got hacked for access to the personal information of their customers, they stopped making payments for months. When some medical practices had to close due to loss of revenue, guess who has been buying them up.
The Justice Department is opposing their proposed acquisition of one of their home health and hospice competitors.
Also:
Multiple senior executives at UnitedHealthcare have been under investigation by the Department of Justice, though it is not clear if CEO Brian Thompson was part of that investigation before his murder.
The healthcare industry moves a lot of money, and the people controlling the corporations have no fiduciary responsibility to their customers. Some of the people who manipulate the system to enrich themselves never have to answer for their dishonesty.
Here in Florida, we have the example of former governor and current senator Rick Scott, whose company was fined a total of 1.7 billion dollars for ripping off Medicare, Medicaid, and other government run programs.
Streetwiseguy said:I'm not involved in private health insurance, being a Canadian. I can tell you, however, that the costs to me as a taxpayer are very high, and service is not timely.
I dealt with health issues this past year. Still don't know what was up. I had a fainting spell and was suffering weird chronic fatigue symptoms.
I was looking at weeks to see my GP (luckily he had a cancelation, and I was able to get in the same week). Then I was looking at 2-3 months just to consult with a cardiologist. This actually got pushed back because insurance denied payment on testing that the GP ordered.
I had one visit to the ER because my GP told me to go. That cost me roughly $3,500. All the other tests and everything were at least another $2,000. This is all after insurance and getting care in network.
So this year has probably cost me $8,000 in medical expenses. That's 1/8 of my gross salary.
I had an easier time getting health care in Germany, and at only a fraction of the cost when I didn't speak the language and was unfamiliar with how their system worked.
The Canadian system makes you wait up to a couple years for treatment.
They hope that you'll die or chose medically assisted suicide instead so that you're no longer a burden on the system.
This is also a bonus because the government gets to keep all of your pension contributions (old age security) rather than giving it to your relatives like they should.
I have friends that were told they couldn't have a procedure done here because our system won't cover it. They went to a private clinic in the USA and for the price of a mid-level sedan, they have working knees again.
If you're a politician or in prison. Good news! No wait list for you, you go to the head of the line!
In reply to ShawnG :
Looking up numbers... you are correct that Canadian wait times are stupid. But the U.S. is really bad too. I decided to compare to other industrialized nations.
Average (median) wait time to see a doctor in...
Canada: 27.7 Weeks
United States: I'm seeing 26 days and 38 days (call it "a month")
Britain: Within 48 hours
Germany: About 4 days
Australia: [I'm seeing, "Up to 3 weeks" which sounds like the high end, not the median...]
So yeah, Canada appears to be doing worse than the U.S., but neither is doing well.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
A few months ago Mrs. Snowdoggie needed an MRI and her doctor sent her to the most expensive place in town where they quoted her one price then after it was done, billed her another price that was twice as much. Then her insurance company paid only a part of it and the MRI place demanded she pay the rest or get her credit rating trashed and get sued for payment and so on. There is a cheap MRI place in town that advertises a low price and promises to take Medicare, all private insurance and even cash. I asked if I could drive here there next time and the admin at her doctor's office said that just isn't done. I later found out that the doctor had a sweethart deal to send all of his patents to the expensive place and was probably getting a kickback. The worst of it is that the amount she paid after the insurance paid a part was still more than the advertised total for the cheaper place.
You just gave a great example of why an insurance company should deny or short pay a claim. Your doctor and/or MRI provider ripped you off. You found that out for yourself, after you agreed to and used the service. Why is that the fault of the insurance? If you don't want to overpay for the same service, why do you expect that they should? I think you are pointing your finger at the wrong party.
I can't believe you guys have me defending the insurance industry. It's got a lot of problems, but many of you have such a poor understanding of the way the system works and how it got where it is, I feel compelled to bring us a bit closer to reality. No, isn't anywhere near a leading cause of homelessness. You need to twist facts into a pretzel to reach that conclusion. In fact, healthcare is most accessible to the poorest in this country. There are countless programs available, and if they are charged anything, many aren't paying anyway. I know plenty of poor people who have zero issues with access to health care. They just go to the doctor, or go to the ER, they don't think twice. Unfortunately health care is not an infinite resource, and the cost of that care has to come from somewhere. It's not from the rich (other than taxes.) They don't have health insurance, they are self insured. Which leaves those of us in the middle to pay for it all. And like everything else in life, you need to be your own advocate when it comes to your health care. None of us here would just drop a car off at the tire shop and tell them to just slap some new tires on it. You would likely have researched half a dozen models and checked pricing at half a dozen shops. That same effort needs to go into your healthcare. There are laws that regulate that, put in years ago. Go look at your bills, statements, online sign in's, they tell you repeatedly how to check pricing and coverage and how to dispute a bill. Yes, it sucks to have to do that, and they can be a pain to deal with- but nowhere near the point of justifying murder.
In reply to Flynlow :
In regards to the wild over representation of this in the news/media compared to other murders:
That really is not really unreasonable. A more "typical" murder may be an in a gang revenge killing (which I think is the large majority?) or maybe even a robbery. A gang member is generally at risk for that, and it happens a lot, while a convenience store owner is clearly at higher risk than the average person (though this will likely be more news worthy than the gang land killing because it's less common).
The more unusual, the more newsworthy. This was VERY unusual, in a number of ways.
As far as police response, as compared, to say, the gangland killing. This, as noted previously, is more in the lines of a terrorist act (freedom fighter if that's your bent), or even a sniper, which makes if FAR more significant, general society wise (as in potentially literally a threat to social stability). It is similar to why there is such a large response to cop killers (as in targeting one). Certainly there is an aspect of "one of ours", but someone who is willing to kill a cop poses a much larger danger to society than a "typical" killer, as a sniper does also (the random aspect of it in that case)
Boost_Crazy said:I think this whole discussion is framed incorrectly. Let's fix it. The CEO wasn't murdered for denying health care. Health insurance is not healthcare. It's a means for paying for health care. Health care cannot be withheld, the patient can get whatever care they need.
I can get healthcare whenever I want? Tell me how to do that without jeopardizing my health? I can get free insulin, but I have to go to the ER, likely in a coma, to get it. This is not a what if scenario, this is what I was told to my face, by a health care professional.
I used to buy insulin off of Craigslist. I couldn't afford it any other way. I was sure I was going to die/get killed every time I did it. Can you imagine the stress? It's that bad out there. Re-read that as many times as you have to.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
