Schadenfreude.Why else feel so satisfied about it?
Inevitable in societies where social injustice is the norm.
Schadenfreude.Why else feel so satisfied about it?
Brilliant.Yes, he did intend to kill people. You don't pay out if they die, do you?
Stating that an insurance company is just following the business model is correct. The business model in this case is to not give people medical care. If a person chooses to head that company, and spend their time as CEO trying to figure out ways, or paying others, to figure out ways, to do this, then they are imo, sociopathic assholes. No one is forcing them to be the CEO. It's voluntary and pays well. They pay them to take on the responsibility of the policies.
Btw the AI resulted in a 90% second opinion denial. And was illegal. So what are the consequences for this? A fine? Paid for by the company?
Yes, delaying and denying care kills people. To state otherwise is ludicrous. And indifference is not a defense. Leave a person dying the side of the road after an accident, not call 911, even if you didn't have any part in the accident, and you are a piece of shit.
He chose to be part of a system that places money above lives. It's that simple.
Kitty let it fly...You're posts are fascinating. Well thought out and stated.Sorry for the long post, I was accused of being a pseudointellectual the other day so I was reluctant to say everything I wanted to say. But there it is
Haha thanks. I was considering getting an alt to participate here in these discussionsKitty let it fly...You're posts are fascinating. Well thought out and stated.
Nah..High intelligence is very attractive.Haha thanks. I was considering getting an alt to participate here in these discussions
She clearly has her moments.Nah..High intelligence is very attractive.
Your description of the 'business model' is not rooted in reality. For the most part the market works. Every insurance company will look for legal ways to not pay out, its part of due diligence. So is the solution to to off every CEO of an insurance company that wronged a customer? If so we'd have no CEO's left.The "business" model is gambling and scamming. It's take people's money then do their level best NOT TO PAY OUT. It's that simple.
So no, it isn't commie. It's basic consumer protection.
And it's not about not giving a product, it's about denial of healthcare to people. It's about letting them suffer and die.
Go ahead, explain the virtues of this business model. I'm waiting.
Yeah.There has to be a valid reason behind it. Otherwise they would be buried in legal claims against them.
Using AI isn't illegal. If they know that the AI isn't functioning properly or if its rigged and systematically denying claims at inordinate rates, then there is grounds for a regulatory investigation and a potential class action lawsuit against the company.We was directly responsible. He was the CEO. He made the policy calls. That's the job? If the CEO isn't the leader and policy maker, then who the fuck is, and why is it a tough job?
Seriously, explain the business model. Who is responsible for the policies that end with 32% denial rates and using the AI illegally?
Yes! They have been using “AI” and automated stuff since the 70s lolUsing AI isn't illegal. If they know that the AI isn't functioning properly or if its rigged and systematically denying claims at inordinate rates, then there is grounds for a regulatory investigation and a potential class action lawsuit against the company.
It is if it's SUPPOSED TO BE AN ACTUAL DOCTOR. Either way the point being is IT SHOULD BE CRIMINAL. And the CEO charged with a crime. The day they said corporations are people was the day capitalism became a means to criminal activity. People making criminal decisions are shielded from consequences.Using AI isn't illegal. If they know that the AI isn't functioning properly or if its rigged and systematically denying claims at inordinate rates, then there is grounds for a regulatory investigation and a potential class action lawsuit against the company.
The other thing people seem to forget is United isn't the only healthcare insurance provider out there. If you don't like the way they operate find another insurer. Utilize other means such as health savings accounts or health reimbursement arrangements. When my company employed Americans we negotiated paying them additional $ and they used that to find their own preferred insurance providers.It is if it's SUPPOSED TO BE AN ACTUAL DOCTOR. Either way the point being is IT SHOULD BE CRIMINAL. And the CEO charged with a crime. The day they said corporations are people was the day capitalism became a means to criminal activity. People making criminal decisions are shielded from consequences.
There was a class action filled in 2023 which found the proof of the use of AI. Not sure if it settled as of now and if yhey paid damages.Using AI isn't illegal. If they know that the AI isn't functioning properly or if its rigged and systematically denying claims at inordinate rates, then there is grounds for a regulatory investigation and a potential class action lawsuit against the company.
They are buried in claims. And you just admitted they are in the business of NOT PAYING CLAIMS. And that it is good for business and how they make a profit. Way to go. Now the next step is to realize they pay politicians to make make as many legal loopholes as possible, and you are getting enlightened. Quite simply considering the mass, bipartisan reaction to this, support for the killer, I'd say it's proof the "market(stock)" are the only ones benefiting. And the providers, pharmaceutical companies that over charge. Did you ever consider that somewhere along the way the PATIENTS should benefit as well? Clearly they aren't.Your description of the 'business model' is not rooted in reality. For the most part the market works. Every insurance company will look for legal ways to not pay out, its part of due diligence. So is the solution to to off every CEO of an insurance company that wronged a customer? If so we'd have no CEO's left.
You also realize that the health insurance industry in the United States is quite regulated. They just can't cut off someone's insurance or deny claims because they feel like it. There has to be a valid reason behind it. Otherwise they would be buried in legal claims against them.
Except employer paid for most is the only option. Right? Add in deductibles, co pays and they really do nothing. And think about what you just said, it cost businesses more too. For what? An extra layer of bureaucracy? Paying a middleman? Paying inflated costs? Paying shareholders?The other thing people seem to forget is United isn't the only healthcare insurance provider out there. If you don't like the way they operate find another insurer. Utilize other means such as health savings accounts or health reimbursement arrangements. When my company employed Americans we negotiated paying them additional $ and they used that to find their own preferred insurance providers.