Surely not all that blood is on the hands of the CEO, or even UHC. But everyone has either been denied claims or knows someone that has, through some of the most disgusting treatment witnessable from corporate america. It'd be one thing if you were denied a claim for.... any variety of reasons that follow from the inherent difficulty of managing health insurance as many countries can attest to. But overriding doctor concerns to withhold funding for necessary treatment and withholding as much as possible while raking in profits leaves people with very bitter tastes in their mouths.
Mine included: I'm paying for a medical procedure for a friend next week because her insurance won't cover anesthesia and she can't afford the out of pocket. I had multiple relatives die much sooner than they had to because they were denied funding for critical medication. I've had multiple friends talk about "rationing insulin" (thankfully, both times referring to the past). And naturally healthcare interests—UHC included—lobby both parties heavily, so there's a lot of incentive to continue ignoring the elephant in the room.
This is the system Americans have chosen. Im not saying its the best or shouldnt be improved.
Im for a public option, but there will still be rationing and denial of care. people will still die.
Said more accurately: this is the system chosen for Americans, against many of their wishes, by the officials some of them elected.
"People will still die" is the kind of thing narcissists and sociopaths tell themselves when they are pretty sure that the set of "people" does not include themselves.
It would be nice if they did that consistently and fairly, but they don’t.
Using an AI to review and deny claims with a (claimed) 90% error rate or denying claims without reading them is not vetting, it’s straight up negligence and fraud.
https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/11/ai-with-90-error-rate...
https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health...
Some (few) of them. In EU it is different.
The majority of American voters have chosen this system multiple times, and have voted for a president who has explicitly said he'll make this system worse by repealing the ACA. He almost did it the first time, too, and it only failed by one vote.
Maybe this UHC CEO event will get more people talking about healthcare, and ultimately get more people voting for candidates who want to improve the system next time around. I support a public option, so I hope it does. But I won't hold my breath.
No, he has literally said he would replace it with something better.
This is a lie, obviously.
But you can't then assume the people who voted for him were voting for the system to be worse.
Some fraction of them are likely desperately hoping it gets better and have just had their desperation taken advantage of.
> But you can't then assume the people who voted for him were voting for the system to be worse.
At least in 2016, some of his voters that I knew personally just wanted the ACA to be gone and to have "freeloaders" kicked off of the system. They weren't voting to make it worse for themselves, per se, but voted vindictively to make it worse for others.
So tired of the dumbest people having the loudest voices online because populist bumper stickers work better than actual thoughtful commentary.