Thoroughly decent people don't massively increase profits through denying their customers the service they paid for. In the short time he was CEO, the denial rate skyrocketed at United.
here's one from The NY Times Three Columnists Wrestle With the Lionizing of Luigi Mangione link will work for everyone https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/12/...e_code=1.g04.RNlv.knCBy3uhDO82&smid=url-share
Regardless of his struggles and successes, he compromised morals for profit. And that is what is wrong and bad with America. And that's the core issue I have with the GOP (and most of the Democrat elite). They compromise morals, or simply don't have them. The GOP extolls the lack of morals as a virtue. Think about that statement. I was poor as **** and am self-made person, as much as you can be while being white man in Texas and doing pretty well in the genetic lottery, but I would never sign off on denying people access to medical care due to technicalities and loopholes. There's a point where simple humanity trumps profit.
I'm still trying to find a libertarian trying to answer how a profit motive for health insurance helps society. I've heard the argument for pharma and medicine itself because of the "innovation" argument even though that argument is shaky given the amount of government funding goes into pharma and medical research in general where the private companies just do the last legs of development that mainly develops the economy of scale and mass production capabilities of what the publicly funded research discovered. But insurance I'm sorry but what innovations are we waiting on from the insurance industry that warrants a profit motive? Why do we need a profit motive for the middle man who just pools the money?
It's important to note that the largest US source of funding for medical research is the NIH. For-profit companies get grants, then make profits, off of US Government-backed funding. Profit is the motive to put together companies that innovate, but there would be far less of this without government funding. Here's your answer from an Independent: One thing that the private insurance industry does better is innovating more efficient routing of claims processes because efficiency=higher profit margin. The natural evolution of this is more and more efficient claims denial to the detriment of the claimants. If you look at the claims process in a governmental agency like the SSA, it's a nightmare from the field/website information gathering stage all the way to adjudication in many cases. This is the stark difference between private insurance and government claims processing. The profit motive is huge (and this is the case in most governmental agencies). (As a side note, if you'll allow me a tangent, in a purely theoretical sense the new SSA director Frank Bisignano will be good for streamlining claims and other SSA processes because he comes from fintech and specializes in tech efficiency. )
Yup. Efficiency in maximizing profit... Not efficiency in improving the quality of life of Americans.
The killer’s personal situation isn’t all that relevant. He likely saw himself as acting on behalf of society as a whole. And there is a lot of very understandable hopelessness in society as a whole when it comes to healthcare costs. My sister’s friend killed himself last year because his back problems ruined him financially. Such stories, sadly, aren’t uncommon. Maybe you think the predatory practices of health insurance companies are fine and reform isn’t needed. I’d venture to say the vast majority of Americans would disagree with you in that case.
Elizabeth Warren, CEO-Assassin Cheerleader https://reason.com/2024/12/12/elizabeth-warren-ceo-assassin-cheerleader/
262 words . . .. its not quite a manifesto . . .. I bet it still fits on a single page doublespaces with 14 pt size Rocket River
As others have said, two things can be true. It is always wrong to try and use violence to solve problems and murder is definitely wrong. It is also wrong to allow greed to cause someone to reject medical claims, procedures, and care in an effort to make more money. A third thing can also be This is a strange example representative of the larger situation in our society. Some people don't feel sympathy towards the victim of this murder and celebrate the incident and murderer. Others, who are more bothered at this reaction, than they ever were about the actual murder seek to portray the CEO as some kind of admirable hero who was shining example of all things good and wonderful about our society and this great nation of ours. They do this in attempt to make the first group of people I mentioned look bad. Some of the things all of us can look at to help this move forward are: The average numberof rejected claims is already too high. This company had twice that amount of rejected claims. Rather than try and correct it, the insurance company blai, med an AI algorithm which is worse AI algorithms shouldn't be the sole basis for rejecting claims, especially when the people putting in the parameters of the algorithm emphasize profit. The frustration at this CEO and our Healthcare system, overall has reached the point where people are willing to overlook the murder and sympathize with the murderer. Taking steps to address and correct they Healthcare insurance market isn't an acceptance of murder as an acceptable way to solve problems. We also might want to look at why people are trying to whitewash the pain, loss, and death on the hands of the CEO in an effort to lash out at people they disagree with in relation to politics.
The problem is we firmly beleive there are ACCEPTABLE ways to kill someone. Gun NO! Slow death by denying them medical care. .. YES!! THAT IS ACCEPTABLE ESP IF A SMALL GROUP CAN PROFIT FROM THEIR DEATH . . .esp if it is not that person's family. (When family profits from denying someone medical care .. .that's bad and murdery) Poisoning the local water supply .. . while chasing profit. . .and killing and sickening the whole community . . .. that's ok. . .ACCEPTABLE USer cheaper or fake food that you KNOW will give people cancer . . .. if the cost benefit analysis leaves the company in Profits. . .That's ok .. . ACCEPTABLE We are very much PRO-SLOW-AGONIZING-DEATH . . . Rocket River
What do you learn from a bachelors in business administration on how to manage a service that collectively pools money, analyzes risk based on medical and actuary sciences to redistribute the collective pool of money for medical procedures? Why do we need people who take 20 million dollars a year out of the collective pool to fund their wealth and power desires with little education and knowledge in actuary sciences and medical sciences to manage these collective networks of money just so they can deny children of Anti-Nausea medication while on chemo? Why can't we just have 200k a year salaried actuary and medical scientists employees by the government managing this collective pool of money meant to be redistributed back for medical procedures and medication?
Fascinatingly stupid. At no point did Warren cheerlead, excuse, or encourage assassinating this CEO or any CEO. This is exactly what I mentioned. Highlighting and seeking to address the problems with healthcare and particularly United isn't saying murder is okay. Addressing people's concern, frustration, and displeasure with the greedy prioritization of money over healthcare isn't cheerleading murder. This article is garbage. It is nothing more than litter with added effort to create division in our society.
Unironically true. Yes normatively one not ought to murder but history is full of periods where general public thought it was time to off some cunts at the top. That's a very human thing. Is that something you seriously are denying and trying hard to meme as absurd? Well it seems like you reasoning for why you think it's a meme level absurd premise is rather circular right?
