https://www.propublica.org/article/evicore-health-insurance-...

Not that I think it justifies murdering the CEO, but also such is the nature of systematic violation of massive numbers of people's sense of justice.

I think we'll see a lot more of this sort of thing in the future. Your car killed my mother and the law said it was fine. Your insurance company denied my grandma's claim and she died in agony after paying premiums for 30 years.

Let's just hope that autonomous drones don't become trivially capable as weapons. At that point, everyone from the President and your local police chief to the chairman of Bank of America and the local ambulance chasing lawyer who sued the wrong guy's mom after she hit someone in a car accident would be in a very bad situation.

We should really try to get this under control before it gets out of hand.

You're not expected to have a faultless AI but you're expected to supervise it, to have an appeal process, and to make things right when AI makes mistakes. In other words, this is a "high risk system" under the EU AI Act, which should have appropriate safeguards in place.

> Human oversight shall aim to prevent or minimise the risks to health, safety or fundamental rights that may emerge when a high-risk AI system is used in accordance with its intended purpose or under conditions of reasonably foreseeable misuse, in particular where such risks persist despite the application of other requirements set out in this Section.

https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/14/

Probably relevant

Since they will all be increasing their rates soon to cover the expenses of 24/7 armed guards, armored vehicles, etc…

Edit: Or a reduction in service quality to cover the new expenses.

> How do they still have that many customers if their service was so bad?

Because the people making the decision to purchase UHC services and using UHC services are two wildly different demographics.

Do they have an effective monopoly in certain States?

Or are you implying the ‘pickers’ get special gold plated services completely different from regular employees?

That money has to come from somewhere, so a cheaper pick means more money available for other things like nicer employee lounges, free drinks, etc…

Unless you were being sarcastic in saying "yeah you're going to die sooner due to our poor healthcare choice, but hey, a free soda*!"

* remote workers get nothing

Besides that, most companies can afford free soda with or without terrible healthcare choices, so it seems totally orthogonal: free soda doesn't require bad healthcare choices and bad healthcare choices don't imply free soda.

It could of course be very delayed or simply be used primarily as pretexts for corporate infighting with a very low probability of such a linkage.

But nonetheless even in the worst case scenario, a very low probability for the median employee is still better than zero probability.

'We could theoretically spend greater than 0% of the savings on something that could be better or worse sometime in the future' isn't good enough on its own, and it's not convincing enough that it will ever happen, and if it does, it doesn't leave me convinced that the money will be spent on something better for me.

> even in the worst case scenario, a very low probability for the median employee is still better than zero probability.

The criteria to use here is, "do employees feel they're better off with the new, terrible healthcare plan, given any free sodas etc they might have received in exchange". If the employees wouldn't have voluntarily made the same choice for themselves, then it was a bad healthcare choice for employees.

Why would they all start behaving like charities?

Edit: I would love to make $20/minute every day finding ways to drive people into medical bankruptcy, despair, and death, just like him, because being rich is awesome. :)