https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-co...
Whether or not you think that’s fair, that’s a huge number of people with the basis for a serious grudge. Since we’ve made it easier to get guns than healthcare, I’d expect copycats - especially after people see how much it struck a nerve.
They didn't cover my grandmother's mammogram
They didn't cover her chemo
They didn't cover the pain and anxiety meds for her palliative care
She died of cancer over the course of two years. Insurance made sure that she couldn't detect it early, treat it, or manage her pain and terror. As far as I'm concerned, they caused her death directly and made it as horrible as possible.
How does that happen? AFAIK the ACA mandates coverage for cancer treatment for almost all plans.
https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health...
https://www.propublica.org/article/evicore-health-insurance-...
This is one example of how hard it can be to fight these fraudulent denials, even for someone with above average resources:
https://www.propublica.org/article/priority-health-michigan-...
Individuals can’t fix these problems at scale: it needs something like a government investigator with subpoena power and the ability to directly fine executives. As long as people make more money by denying care, they’re just going to keep finding ways to do so.
Certain expensive chemo drugs will get denied unless cheaper options are tried first, if they're used off-label or experimental. Some won't be approved until surgery, at too early a stage or if tests don't indicate elevated risk factors.
This is such a great line! On the bright side, perhaps these big companies will now start lobbying for more reasonable gun laws.
If correct means its legally unenforceable and practical and you only take that into consideration in isolation, then yes, right up until logarithmic error occurs, as you say.
The brass verdict is not a new concept, you see it show up in movies all the time like for example, The Beekeeper with Jason Statham.
Unfortunately it is a fairly sound and established fact that violence happens more often when law fails to serve its primary function for the people.
In a "rule of law", non-violent conflict management takes place. This is one of its primary purposes.
When the requirements for a "rule of law" degrade into a "rule by law" regardless of what members of such systems may claim (people may be delusional,blind, or lie), through corruption or otherwise, these things inevitably occur since there is no other means to resolve conflict.
This may just be one more example where business people win so much that they lose.
When someone is at the top of a company, you are responsible not only for your actions, but for those under you as well.
People in those positions must always be vigilant to inaction more than action, including those actions of others who are under your purview because inaction or failure to oversee is an action itself and a choice that is favored by many absent any information under many common management styles today.
This is a sad story, but the news rarely covers anything other than fire flood or blood. If it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead, or so the newsies say.
You need to do something uniquely unpopular for receiving that intensity of hate. Also, it seems like despite the divide, most people agree on their hatred for insurance companies?
* Technically there is, but it was written after this saying became widely used, and also is not actually an anti-fire-department song.
I have a pretty easy solution for that, but it might reduce profits: Just behave in a way so that your fellow citizens don't hate you?
If people demonstrate by shouting your company name while carrying coffins around - which is what happened earlier this year when United Healthcare started using AI to reject claims - then that probably means that your actions have made you unpopular.