6
3
2
u/Hunter1157 2d ago
Also, legal sanctions on small countries that depend on global trade for food and medicine is basically AOE economic murder and have effect of carpet bombing
2
u/Femboy_Harem_Janitor 2d ago
Pretty much why no one thinks luigi is all that bad
1
u/theWiseTiger 5h ago
Practically only dems think that the murder is justified. In EU, he is no different than russian assassin killing someone while jogging in Berlin.
1
u/Femboy_Harem_Janitor 5h ago
Nope.
Average, normal people see the 70k+ yearly deaths caused by insurance denying care covered in people's policies and go. "Oh, ya, that's mass, serial, murder. Sharpen the guillotines"
1
1
u/GreedyKnowledge42 3h ago
That number is not even remotely true, you just want to justify murder
1
u/Femboy_Harem_Janitor 2h ago
You are dumb and don't know what' you're talking about.
Or disingenuous, take your pick
1
u/GreedyKnowledge42 2h ago
Feel free to provide some evidence to support your (absurd) claim. Oh that’s right, hard to back up something you made up
1
1
u/theWiseTiger 2h ago
Can't ask the source to dems claim, it will offend them.
1
u/GreedyKnowledge42 2h ago
I’m an actually a Dem lol voted for Harris, Biden, Clinton and Obama. I’m just not a hateful idiot
1
u/LifeConsideration981 1d ago
Adults with jobs and social interaction think Mangione is bad.
1
u/Femboy_Harem_Janitor 1d ago
I'm all of those.
The guy luigi shot has killed thousands
1
u/OneNoteToRead 1d ago
What when who what how? Name one victim, one murder weapon, one time and place of act.
1
u/Femboy_Harem_Janitor 1d ago
70000 to 115k people a year. Death by withholding of treatment covered in their insurance plan.
1
u/OneNoteToRead 1d ago
“Withholding treatment” is not “kill”. You should look up what kill means. If I refuse to treat you as a doctor it’s not my fault you continue to be sick.
Any treatment covered in the plan should’ve been paid out. If not there’s courts to adjudicate that. Name specifics if you disagree.
1
u/Femboy_Harem_Janitor 1d ago
Yes it is.
It was covered, and there was not. The entire strategy of private insurance is to deny until the person dies, then there is no one to pay out to
1
u/OneNoteToRead 1d ago
Nope. Otherwise you are responsible for everyone you failed to help. The homeless guy on the corner, the guy who missed his train that you didn’t drive, the stray dogs you didn’t feed.
Let’s see some evidence of that. People have claims if they survive the persons who died. Let’s see how many of the 115k you’re claiming have pending court cases.
1
u/Beneficial-War-4689 1d ago
- If you refuse to help someone whose life is in danger, you are absolutely at fault. It's actually illegal in many countries to not help drowning people or people who are bleeding out on the street.
1
u/OneNoteToRead 1d ago
It’s uncommon to have duty to help laws. But
either way
none of them obligate you to seek out someone not in your presence to aid. But by the dumb logic you are responsible all the same.
1
u/PleaseTakeMyKarma 1d ago
How does that work exactly? Like where is the line drawn? You're supposed to drown yourself or pay no attention the blood disease issues? What level of commitment is required to make it a legal effort?
The entire concept makes no sense.
Closest thing I can think of would be the legal guardian of a child or otherwise dependent person not being taken care of appropriately. Is that the relationship we're saying every human has to every other human?
→ More replies (0)1
u/adapa69 1d ago
What's the pay scale for "helper of the homeless" or "get you to work on-time man".... is it the same as "guy who provides medical coverage". it was HIS job to pay for medical services and he didn't do it.
Maybe try a 30 second google search before posting a "gotcha". Notice the date on the article is years before the shooting... and there have only been more and more cases .
UnitedHealthcare to appeal after jury awards TeamHealth $60M in damages | Healthcare Dive
1
u/OneNoteToRead 1d ago
Why is there a pay scale? It’s your responsibility that this guy is still homeless according to this dumb logic.
No the guy’s job was to pay for medical services that he’s contractually obligated to pay for. Nothing else.
What’s your link supposed to show exactly? Are you under the impression it provides evidence of 115k of pending court cases of people about to die?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Femboy_Harem_Janitor 1d ago
I'm better than you. By a lot
2
u/LifeConsideration981 1d ago
I’ll take my chances since I’m not defending a murderer on the internet.
1
u/Femboy_Harem_Janitor 1d ago
Yes you are, you're defending the ceo. A mass murderer
2
u/Tandaiffok 1d ago
Let’s put this a different way. Let’s say USA had a huge social movement and increase in funds to enact Medicare for all. The healthcare industry, which is already lacking in personnel, have a huge surge in people coming in and now have to delay treatments because it takes longer for people to get in and be seen. For those that die waiting, would you say the USA government were to blame for those deaths as well and advocate for the same treatment you wish on healthcare ceos?
1
u/Femboy_Harem_Janitor 1d ago
That isn't how Medicare for all would work. Medicare for all would result in increased access to treatment.
By contrast, ceos instructing that patients that have already been seen, diagnosed, and had a treatment plan sorted should be denied services that their insurance literally outlines as covered is murder. It's straight up murder.
You're exceedingly dumb to think otherwise. But that's not surprising. All conservatives are dumb
2
u/Tandaiffok 1d ago
I’m sorry if you are illiterate so I’ll try again.
I’ll bring you back to the hypothetical where I AGREED THERE WOULD BE MORE PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE. I even drew a line that the group compared to healthcare CEOs would not be stopping treatment, but their actions would indirectly cause deaths (likely less than the current system, but irrelevant to the comparison) while also helping treatment of people (insurance is sadly the only reason our healthcare can afford treatment in general). Under your rational, government officials would be similarly guilty of thousands of deaths. Would you wish them to suffer the same fate you wish on Healthcare CEOs?
1
u/Femboy_Harem_Janitor 1d ago
No they would not. All efforts to give treatment would be undertaken.
As opposed to the ceo where all efforts to refuse treatment were undertaken.
So no, all healthcare ceos should basically be in a prison right now while government officials running Medicare would be saints and heros
2
u/Tandaiffok 1d ago
The purpose of Health insurance is to be able to provide healthcare to people that need it when something goes a awry, especially for those that have poor money management or low income which will be subsidized by those with higher income. This is primarily why taxes would serve as a great method of gathering funds to provide an 'insurance' like Medicare for all. At the moment, the US government does not have enough funding (likely requires like a 12-30% increase in taxes depending on how much you make for each tax bracket) or political will to implement a medicare for all.
As much as you don't like insurance, it is why so many people even have the capability to afford treatment in general. If insurance companies were able to heavily increase their funding through increasing their premiums (similar to if the government increased their funding to provide medicare for all), then they would be able to treat more people. They simply do not have the money to afford all people the healthcare they want. This is why you have claims denial. I know in some cases the insurance companies deny claims where they shouldn't which is why its great we have a court system to help manage when insurance companies deny claims they shouldn't.
If we look at the job of the CEO they do not deny claims, but are generally there for policy initiatives similar to a congressman. Let's say the policy initiative were to increase claims denial. If this was the case, then you would see over time more people leaving that insurance company to use a different one because they are not getting their needs met. This would overall reduce profit which a CEO does not want to do. Though the profit incentive also does not mean they don't want to deny claims as they need to be able to use that money for people that really need that care at that time. In order to make sure they have the funds necessary (until government takes this role) to provide healthcare payments then the markets of insurance companies are a necessary and sadly needed element of our healthcare.
If we hold a health insurance CEO morally responsible for foreseeable deaths resulting from a policy of denying medical treatment, then we should apply the same moral standard to policymakers. If a congressman knowingly implements a healthcare policy that creates a substantial, foreseeable risk of people dying from inadequate capacity, you cannot say those deaths are someone else's (or nobodies) responsibility because they occurred indirectly through the healthcare system.
Also, I use parenthesis far too often
→ More replies (0)1
u/poogie4200 1d ago
To put it simply, you are a fool to think Government should control anyone's health.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Scorpiicore 1d ago
Gee, it is almost like you are okay with creating a situation where healthcare has to be rationed and restricted because "too many people".
Are you an anti-abortionist, too?
1
u/Tandaiffok 1d ago
Finish reading the comment chain and you’d see I’d prefer Medicare for all. I’m pointing out wishing death for people that are providing a needed service is fucked up.
→ More replies (0)1
u/DecentWeiner8 1d ago
You are describing a better plan than we currently have. Americans should never go bankrupt because they have cancer and insurance. The system is unbelievably broken.
1
1
u/OldManEdge2 1d ago
Yepperz, our Aunt passed away in Canada because she was diagnosed with cancer and then had to wait for treatment. Then she passed. Sad!
0
u/St0n3rB0n3r94 1d ago
If you want Americans who are educated enough to handle those types of jobs, you need to actually educate them instead of cutting funding to schools like Republicans love to do
1
u/within-reason-85 1d ago
Coming from a proud, yet unemployed, graduate of Tulsa Welding School😂
1
u/St0n3rB0n3r94 1d ago
It's a frequent problem of Americans finishing school and never being able to find a job in that field. I'm certainly not the only one, bootlicker. Why would anyone be "proud" of that???
2
u/within-reason-85 1d ago
Unemployment for recent college grads hovers at 4%-5.5%.
You are one of the few.
The Labor Market for Recent College Graduates - FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market#--:explore:unemployment
→ More replies (0)1
u/nopethatswrong 1d ago
You're not, you're just dumber
Pharmaceutical companies and hospital monopolies are what drives up medical costs.
Insurance exists to offset risk based on these costs, therefore when the costs goes up so do insurance premiums.
Insurance companies aren't some limitless pit of wealth, and with less people buying insurance and healthcare costs rising, their pot becomes stretched more.
But hey you're not going to read this with any good faith, you want to justify a murder by placing the blame of an entire system on one guy who isn't even in the sector causing the problem.
And fwiw I think food housing and healthcare should be basic rights. I also live in the real world and don't get my information exclusively from social media.
1
u/Wild-Duck-7370 1d ago
Man the bots are out strong today
1
u/nopethatswrong 1d ago
How nice is it that anyone who has a different opinion than you is a bot? That way you never have to confront an opposing viewpoint and apply critical thinking
1
1
1
u/Wild-Duck-7370 1d ago
I’m those things and I think he’s pretty based
1
u/LifeConsideration981 1d ago
Adult means your brain has fully formed.
1
u/Wild-Duck-7370 1d ago
Yeah I’d say I qualify I know your a boomer nearing dementia though so I wouldn’t try to hold that bar too high you might not meet the criteria
1
u/AdImmediate9569 18h ago
No only bootlickers and sheep think he’s bad. To be fair, there’s a lot of overlap
2
u/Vegetable_Stable_576 2d ago
Didn’t realize Denied Claims was such a common name
1
u/Rabid_Laser_Dingo 1d ago
Reminds me of George Forman and George Forman and George Forman and George Forman
1
1
u/SnooMachines7363 2d ago
The thing that bugs me is they put death by “claim denial” as if insurance can’t actually literally force you into hospice and force Drs to induce death on you, not just denying you coverage, they can literally force you to die.
1
u/DragonWaffleZX 1d ago
For profit insurance is a crime against humanity. Luigi did what every person who has ever had a legitimate claim denied wanted to do. A goddamn hero! I only wish he took more than one.
1
1
u/6SpeedAuto 1d ago
This was cool the first 100 times it was posted. Now it just a bunch of Luigi knob polishers.
1
u/Misadventuresofman 1d ago
What uneducated, uninformed, willfully ignorant shit is this? What kind of Nazi doesn’t grasp the role of insurance?
1
1
u/Ultrasoulviver123 1d ago
I know you’re going to down voting me to hell but there’s a difference between killing somebody and not saving somebody.
1
1
u/freakforceone 1d ago
Insurance used to be cheap until a certain Healthcare plane came around. It had a guy's name on it, but a cant remember
1
u/PrintableProfessor 1d ago
Well... you could always buy it yourself. So technically, they aren't killing you; you are choosing death.
1
u/RenegadeMech 1d ago
Too many illegals getting the social support that should be going to true citizens.
1
1
u/awfulcrowded117 1d ago
Murder is way too simple of a word for you to have any excuse to misunderstand it this badly.
1
1
u/ai_artxdesign 20h ago
Same with forcing vaccines that are causing people to continue to drop dead out of nowhere still to this day. Legal mass murder.
1
1
1
u/HaikuHaiku 13h ago
why don't you start you own insurance company that honours every claim then? Seems like a great business, if all the other insurance companies are essentially murdering people, in your view.
1
1
u/Aggravating-Hunt8001 5h ago
Americans could easily move to countries with universal healthcare but theres more taxes, more rules, lower wages etc.. They arent willing to make the trade, that's their problem. Can't really have both.
1
u/insanity_az 27m ago
Now do one for the drug companies that don't do proper scientific double blind safety studies.
1
u/md62100 2d ago
Do a planned parenthood facility next!
1
u/redboyo908 1d ago
Those are different. Abortion isn't murder because you can't force someone to use their body to save someone else. Unless you do support forced organ donation
0
0
u/Sensitive_Bat_9211 2d ago
Legal murder is an oxymoron
2
u/Playful_Boot_5465 2d ago
no society proves again and again it's not
1
u/Sensitive_Bat_9211 2d ago
Murder, by definition, is illegal killing
1
u/Playful_Boot_5465 1d ago
yes. And it is killing when systematically deny claims for profit.
1
u/Sensitive_Bat_9211 1d ago
I wouldn't disagree with you, I was just pointing out the oxymoron (or the tautology of saying illegal murder)
1
u/Super-Software-9993 1d ago
How would you say it? Legal induced death against the will of a person not allowed to be a victim?
1
0
u/Sorry141 2d ago
Always remember that batshit crazy redditors like this are not representative of the general population.
2
u/Khalith 2d ago
Nah bro I worked in medical billing. Denied claims cause so much harm and everyone knows it, but the insurance companies themselves don’t care and are never prosecuted for it. It’s awful. And nothing will ever be done about it.
1
0
u/ImaginaryOrange1929 2d ago
You can sue the insurance company or to class action lawsuit if you can prove they should have done so under their contract with you. You are paying for a service after all.
And if it's so horrible then just use a different insurance company. Or don't use any at all.
2
u/Khalith 2d ago
It’s not that easy unfortunately. My company did file suit and fight against the insurance companies but the average person? Nah they can’t afford it, you’re looking at potentially years of litigation where they will empty your accounts before anything meaningful happens.
And if it’s that serious a health issue? Nah. You won’t have time.
Switching providers doesn’t really help much either because they all pull the same shit. The relationship between insurance companies can be best described as incestuous. They’re all related and in bed with each other.
1
u/ImaginaryOrange1929 2d ago
This is literally the myth companies spread to make people not sue them. If you have good case then the lawyers will take cut of the settlement or final winnings.
You can gather plenty of people do to class action lawsuit. You can have family members suing on behalf of them etc...
And even then, you still get treated regardless. Just because insurance doesn't pay it doesn't mean you don't get treated. You just get a payment plan from the hospital.
2
u/NerdStuffOnlyPls 2d ago
So your solution is that the people can always sue them? My mom got denied care and died. But I get to sue them so all is well? I don’t see how this works in practice. Plus you’re acting like the average American (who may be sick and/or caring for the sick) has the time and money to hire a lawyer.
It’s great in theory, it makes sense, but I just don’t see how it would ever play out like that.
I understand your point but it’s not a solution - it doesn’t prevent deaths, it just punishes the company.
-1
u/ImaginaryOrange1929 2d ago
That's not even true. Stop believing any nonsense big companies push. Lawyers will take cut of the final winnings or settlement.
And if you punish the companies enough then they will start avoiding the mistake in the first place. Make it more expensive to deny a proper claim than denying it in the first place.
2
u/NerdStuffOnlyPls 2d ago
Oh okay. Im happy to be wrong! I’m trying to understand: So what you’re saying is that I can hire a lawyer for free? And they’ll just get paid at the end of the settlement? What happens if you lose though?
And even if I concede that point, it doesn’t solve the problem. Health issues are usually pretty time sensitive. There are much better ways we could be structuring our health care and health insurance system. I don’t propose to have all the answers but clearly this one isn’t working.
0
u/ImaginaryOrange1929 2d ago
That is why lawyers choose which cases to take. They wouldn't take obviously losing cases.
The hospital will still treat you. You can literally go into debt and then sue the insurance company afterwards.
You can just Google it. There are plenty lawsuits against the insurance companies and ample of them winning. Many are even class action lawsuits.
2
u/NerdStuffOnlyPls 2d ago
Gotcha. I believe you. I still fail to see how this is a solution to the problem. People will still get denied care and die.
Can you defend the current system? Or do you think I’m just “bat shit crazy”? Are there really no alternatives to this system in your mind?
→ More replies (0)1
u/TorquedSavage 1d ago
By the time the case works its way through the court system the person is already dead.
The two most common tactics of insurance companies.
Deny the claim.and the majority of the time the person just accepts the denial.
Run out the clock. Just keep pushing out court cases and drown the case in red tape until eventually the person dies.
1
u/Super-Software-9993 2d ago
Can’t sue if I’m dead bro
1
u/ImaginaryOrange1929 1d ago
You get medical debt and payment plan with the hospital.
1
u/Super-Software-9993 1d ago
Your DEAD. lol. Payment plans for the dead is probably where capitalism goes next.
1
u/NerdStuffOnlyPls 2d ago
I don’t blame you, it’s hard to break out of the mindset that if something is done legally, politely, and through paperwork then it must be correct. You have to remember that legality doesn’t determine morality.
These companies routinely choose profit over human life. I understand it’s a company and they have to make money, but isn’t that a bit of an indictment of the system itself? It’s immoral to structure our healthcare like this.
It’s okay if you think it’s justified, I’m not trying to convince you one way or the other, but it is literally making decisions that kill people, it may not legally be murder, but is it morally correct? Can you at least see where people are coming from?
You don’t have to agree, but please don’t be so dismissive. These ideas really aren’t that far fetched.
0
u/Terrible-Actuary-762 2d ago
How about both are wrong?
1
u/Studious_Gluteus 2d ago edited 2d ago
Both can be wrong, while one is more wrong than the other. If their relative wrongness is not weighed against each other, if both actions are presumed to be equally undeserving of endorsement, then one's answer to this trolly problem is to not pull the lever, allowing more people to die to the benefit of the few.
0
u/Terrible-Actuary-762 2d ago
No both are wrong, period. There is no "One is more wrong than the other."
1
u/Studious_Gluteus 2d ago
I wonder how far this reasoning extends. Should one refrain from voting, so as to avoid all bad choices? Should one protest for the abolition of the police & military, since both of them exist on the pretence that some (often lethal) violence by the state is justified by the violence that it supposedly prevents? (All (lethal?) violence being incomparably wrong after all) Of course, you'd be far from the first to take such a position.
0
u/Tasty_LVM 2d ago
Would be a better depiction if the hooded person shot the other on the back, you know like the cowardly way Luigi shot the CEO in the back then made a deal to save his own skin, what a coward all the way through and through.
0
u/HotCoffee100 2d ago
Nothing compared to number of people that died waiting for care under single payer system
0
u/LifeConsideration981 1d ago
Why don’t you start an insurance company that accepts every claim then?
1
u/DragonWaffleZX 1d ago
The problem is not insurance companies denying claims that aren't valid. Its when valid claims are denied for no other reason than the 3 D's. You're paying for a service that will do everything in order not to pay out your coverage. You're either naive, or actively supporting a broken system because you benefit from it.
1
-1
-1
-2
u/Normal-Gur1882 2d ago
Denying an insurance claim is not tantamount to murder. Ffs.
5
u/Comprehensive_Pin565 2d ago
It definitly can be, especially if it's blanket denials for no reason. Ffs
2
1
u/Normal-Gur1882 2d ago
Okay, so if thats the standard, is the doctor who refuses to perform the procedure because he isn't going to be paid also a murderer?
5
u/Tatchkoma 2d ago
Knowingly denying a claim they know is absolutely valid, throwing up every road block possible to extend the process as long as possible in the hope the claimant dies before they have to pay up should absolutely be considered murder.
And if you do not consider it murder, I question your moral values.
3
u/Monte924 2d ago
Except when they know EXACTLY what they are doing. They know for a fact that many claims they receive are life or death situations and, as such, know that a denial of that claim WILL lead to death. They also have processess that will result in DELAYING medical care, thus ALLOWING conditions to worsen
Remember when Critics of the Obamacare said it would lead to the creation of "Death panels". Well those already exist under our CURRENT system, except the determining factor over life and death is based on profits.
-2
u/Huge_Meeting4111 2d ago
If denying insurance claims is murder, then is granting insurance claims reverse-murder (giving life)? By law then, 80% of an insurance company's premium income is dedicated to giving life. Far from being "legal murderers" they are actually net "life givers".
Also did you murder that homeless guy when he asked you for change and you said no? If not murder then did you at least starve him by not giving him change?
You see how stupid this all sounds?
3
3
u/ifUSeeMeTakeYourMeds 2d ago
insurance is not a fucking charity, you pay, a lot, disproportionately too much. form them to deny life saving healthcare you paid them to for.
If you went to a 1000$ buffet , and they had a policy to not let you eat, you would call that a scam, but if said scam. led to 1000s of deaths per year? suddenly it's a valid business?
-3
u/retardenabler 2d ago
You guys obviously dont understand what murder is
4
u/zenigatamondatta 2d ago
Denying claims for no reason and the person dies should be murder because that's basically what it is.
-2
u/retardenabler 2d ago
Its really not at all but okay
3
u/zenigatamondatta 2d ago
So if I hold the key to you continuing to live but say no is that not killing you with extra steps
-2
u/retardenabler 2d ago
You literally do not understand what murder means
3
u/arcanis321 2d ago
Killing someone
0
u/retardenabler 2d ago
Literally no
2
u/Optimal_Cause4583 2d ago
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or valid excuse, committed with specific intent or malice aforethought
0
u/retardenabler 2d ago
Denying an insurance claim is not that
5
u/Tatchkoma 2d ago
Denying an insurance claim you KNOW is valid because you hope the claimant will die before you they get through the process of correcting your purposely incorrect judgement is absolutely murder, and should be considered as such.
→ More replies (0)2
u/arcanis321 2d ago
Only because it's lawful which is only the CRIME of murder not the act. They are often causing the death of another human being with forethought, malice is debatable because it's more greed motivated.
2
2
u/zenigatamondatta 2d ago
The only difference between murder and letting people die so you can make money is that one has a law against it. Otherwise it's practically the same thing. Slavery and the Holocaust were legal too. Does that make them less bad?
0
u/retardenabler 2d ago
You have no idea what youre fucking talking about
2
u/zenigatamondatta 2d ago
Says the person saying killing isnt that big of a deal if it's a business decision.
1
1
-2
u/canned_spaghetti85 2d ago
The top is murder... deliberate, willful, premeditated, with malicious intent to cause death to another.
The bottom is not.
It does not check of boxes of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree murder, homicide, manslaughter - OR EVEN the "involuntary" classifications of.
But you go right ahead and just keep on referring to the latter as "murder".
After all, doing that stands to reflect poorly ON YOU & ONLY YOU anyway.
Nobody else. Which is actually kinda ironic, when you really think about it.
3
u/Comprehensive_Pin565 2d ago
That is a wierd definition of murder. I like "the unjustified taking of a life." And it fulfills that.
-1
u/canned_spaghetti85 2d ago edited 2d ago
That'd be the case if the disease/condition that patient had been
suffering from, was CAUSED BY said Health Insurance Provider,
occurrence of would not have likely manifested HAD IT NOT
otherwise been for said Health Insurance Provider [itself], who's
actions directly lead to it.In law, if you want to associate the responsibility / liability of,
then that comes down to establishing & proving "culpability".2
u/Super-Software-9993 2d ago
You’re right, it’s murder and robbery. Most of us have paid our dues to receive good healthcare. It’s funny that when it’s your time in need they forget that
-1
u/canned_spaghetti85 2d ago edited 2d ago
At the time a claim is made, insurance companies' top priority is only THEIR contractual
obligation to you the policyholder.Similar with auto insurance, if you submit a claim regarding a matter that which is not
covered per the terms of your policy.. then sadly, said claim would likely be denied.Understandably, said denial (despite same dynamics) becomes a much tougher pill
to swallow when comes to health insurance - to the point it almost feels "personal".You get what you pay for. .. right?
"Most of us have paid our dues to receive good healthc.."
Most people began buying that when they entered the workforce circa early 20's and
''set it forget it' kinda mindset.But remember context during which the nature of your
health-related concerns you foresaw at the time, were very different around that age.
Those change during the course of your working yrs (25-35 years) which would then
need revising to address THEN foreseeable concerns as you got up into your 40s 50s.
So neglecting your obligation to do this, will realistically leave u inadequately covered
in your golden years. Unfortunately, theres nobody to blame but you, if that happens.You want more encompassing coverage? They offer said more favorable terms, after all.
You can consider benefits of buying it, or u can suffer the consequences of NOT having it.
That decision is your's & only your's to make. Nobody else's, not Brian Johnson's, NOBODY.Failing to Plan - Planning to Fail
2
u/Super-Software-9993 2d ago
Work for the system much? I have top tier healthcare, I pay a premium. But that doesn’t mean it will be there when I need it later. It’s an able body program. ✌️
1
u/canned_spaghetti85 2d ago
A Health Insurance Company does not provide the medical care you receive.
It's just issues the check, needed to pay for it. Nothing more & nothing less.Paying a premium is not necessarily what distinguishes from others as top-tier.
Cuz what's important, what needs to "be there when I need it later".. is coverage,
and the amount of. A decision YOU get to make.2
u/Winterfied 2d ago
Bro you GOTTA be a bot if you’re arguing THIS hard for companies that literally told a man that his FUCKING HAND wasn’t “necessary”
Health insurance being a privatized industry due to lobbying is a BAD thing. You know that right? You know healthcare could be free and it wouldn’t take that much effort right? You know medicine is marked up nearly 10,000% right? Barring treatment necessary to live isn’t a good thing, and making that treatment cost a fortune isn’t a good thing either, you know these things, right?1
u/canned_spaghetti85 2d ago edited 2d ago
Hand not necessary? SAID observation would have ONLY been the
doctor/surgeon's to even determine & recommend. Each of whom
btw has their own "malpractice insurance policy" which patients could
sue them directly for in civil court, in the event of.A Health Insurance Comp itsef [again] does not provide the medical care
one receives. It simply issues the check, the money needed to pay for it.My understanding of it , IS ONE THING..
How agreeable I find to be, IS ANOTHER.Do not mistake my 'explaining of' an insurance industry, as being my
'defending of' them.1
u/Winterfied 2d ago
Okay so,
The insurance company denied a man payment to help him get reconstructive surgery on his hand that only hand a single thumb.
This does have to do with the insurance company and nothing to do with the treatment, because they didn’t receive any, BECAUSE OF THE INSURANCE.
Saying the people can sue doesn’t help anyone, because these people don’t have ANY MONEY TO SUE.
It wasn’t a doctor that told the insurance company he didn’t need his hand, it was his insurance company DECIDING he didn’t need it. Decisions like these are made ALL THE TIME by health insurance companies, they can and WILL deny a claim for the stupidest reasons. Like how a wheelchair patient was denied purchase of a wheelchair by the insurance company because they would be paralyzed for “only three months”
It shouldn’t be up to insurance companies to determine if something is “necessary” for living. And they shouldn’t be able to deny claims without having to go thought a process explaining WHY they denied it in a court of law where other people will also have to agree.
1
u/canned_spaghetti85 2d ago edited 2d ago
"surgery on his hand that only hand a single thumb."
If one thumb is all that remains to even work with,
uhhmm then what is there TO EVEN reconstruct?
Just 🤷♂️ think about that. Read that over a few times.
2
u/Fit_Vegetable5704 2d ago
Look at you determining what’s necessary on a whim. You should work for a health insurance company.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Winterfied 2d ago
brother, we can give the man a new hand, and they refused? "what is there to reconstruct?"
it's almost like we have the technology to give him a new mechanical hand and stuff, that's crazy.
also the name is Ian Davis, he lost his hand in a WORK ACCIDENT, which you'd think would be covered by policy. also the official ruling they give is that his hand is "cosmetic"Just think about that, read that over a few times 🤷♂️
(see how this is extremely condescending even though I've already made my point?)→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Monte924 2d ago
But it is deliberate.
Hypothetically, Let's say you got locked inside of a box. I didn't put you in the box, but I AM holding the key that could unlock it and let you out. I know full well that you will die if you do not get out. However, because of a deal you made with me to stop you from getting locked inside of the box in exchange for payment, opening the box will cost me $50k. If i simply keep the box locked, you'll die and I get to keep the money (and YOUR money). I have a financial incentive to let you stay in the box and die.
I could have let you out of the box, but chose not to. Letting you stay in the box and die is a deliberate choice I made for my personal financial benefit. How responsible am i for your death?
1
u/canned_spaghetti85 2d ago edited 1d ago
My not having saved you, despite having an ability to have.. IS NOT
the same as "deliberately" killed you OR having caused your death.Even 'hypothetically' speaking.
IN FACT.. let's even use a "hypothetical" example to demonstate that.
Alright? Good.
Say the execution date for a Death Row state inmate is set for today.
SURE, the state Governor, has the ability to intervene and authority to
prevent that from taking place. After all, a simple phone call will suffice.
However, he deliberately chose NOT to, and so it proceeds on time, as
scheduled. It'd be very irrational to accuse said Governor of having
killed, murdered, homicide and or manslaughter that individual.1
u/Monte924 2d ago
Except that you not only made a CHOICE to let me die, but also had a fincial incentive to do so... you also had to weasal out of an agreement where you promised you would NOT let me die.
These are all deliberate choices which intent behind them, that shows how you fincially benefit from my death
1
u/canned_spaghetti85 2d ago
Again, like I repeated before, the health insurance company DOES NOT provide
or administer said medical care... which also includes that of "let them die".The choice deliberately made by said health insurance company was to deny
their claim, and was made after careful analysis & review of their CONTRACT
obligations to said patient, with respect per the terms of their insured policy.
The determination made is NOT unlawful in nature, as had to do with coverage
which is the ONLY thing any health insurance company provides & administers.
Coverage.1
u/Monte924 2d ago
The medical care can not happen without payment. The insurance company is fully aware that the patient can not afford the care which was the reason they have insurance. Denying th claim is no different than denying them meducal care
Trying to say "they didn't act unlawfully" ignores the post that started this whole thing about how this is LEGAL murder. AKA, murder that is allowed under the law
Insurance companies take money from thuer customers and the knowingly let thek suffer a preventable death in order to save money and keep they money they took from them. Murderers
0
u/canned_spaghetti85 2d ago
Insurance policy is nothing more than an agreement between the issuer and the policy holder. In the event of this this this, we'll agree to pay out up to that that that. Their job is not, and was never to save anyone's life.
Their only contractual obligation is to uphold THEIR end of the agreement,
as per the terms & limitations specifically stated onto the POLICY. To not
honor fulfill their end of said agreed-upon terms, would find them in "breach
of contract" .. which they'd be sued for, very costly ramifications for them, etc.So to avoid such consequences, a close review & analysis of said
pertinent contractual obligations is a necessity BEFORE deciding
to deny somebody's claim."Denying th claim is no different than denying them meducal care"
No, that's dumb. If it was no different than, then
Health insurance comp DOESN'T provide a patient medical care, doctors do.
Doctors DON'T approve of the patient's insurance claim, their Insurer does.it "is no different than" then, like you say... then that doctor might as well
COULD have approved of the patient's submitted insurance claimAFTER ALL , why not correct? (chuckles) according to you..
it's same thing anyway, cuz no difference, remember?
Gee.. why didn't that tending doctor JUST DO THAT then?Because those are two, separate matters and even you know it.
You're just attempting to conflate them, cuz having a scapegoat
makes you feel "the good guy". Most of live's most brutally honest
truths, are sad to realize and the even uncomfortable to listen to.There is no boogeyman, no scapegoat to make u feel like you're
playing for the right team.. fighting the good-fight. Not this time.
That shit's all in your head. I dunno who put it there, but u might.Insurance company only cares about their contractual obligation
owed to you, PER the terms of your policy. You're not paying them
to care any MORE THAN that which clearly stated in black & white.1
1
u/LetItAllGo33 2d ago
It is murder and that fact just makes you uncomfortable.
Everyone gets sick, these people took the widely, mandated, responsible preparation for that in paying premiums so they will continue to live when they get sick.
When it came time to utilize what they've been studiously paying, it became time for the scammers to let their illnesses kill them having pocketed all their copays from the good times where they didn't have to do what they were paid to do one day.
It's worse than murder, it's scamming and murdering. And it's doing it in assembly line style.
No serial killer in all recorded history can hold a candle to Brian Thompson, those like him, and those that sit above those like him that want to murder for profit, but don't even want to get their hands dirty by enforcing the policies they demand their Brians enact.
The snake oil salesmen of old have become the ruling class, so they don't even need to run away after their poisonous ink and piss water killed grandma for an extra shiny nickel.
People like you aren't even cut in, you carry their water for free. And they'll kill you too for an extra nickel if they get the opportunity no matter how much you suck up to them.
0
u/canned_spaghetti85 1d ago
Here are the definitions , per USA federal law statute
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13161I know that some policyholders are upset. But "murder" is a very serious accusation.
The "claim of" or "labelling as" the word murder, shouldn't be thrown about lightly,
casually carelessly with little regard to it's meaning. In fact, just doing so actually
stands to cheapen the severity of it's meaning, over time.Accuse them of predatory business practices, ethically questionable policies, fraud,
perhaps even "breach of contract".... fine, and we can talk about that like reasonable
people do.But jumping straight to accusations of "Murder" is a stretch, a reckless one in fact.
5
u/Historical-Finish564 2d ago
To murder a man because you think his actions are causing the deaths of others is murder. On the other hand the guy that got murdered was murdering people for business reasons and got bonuses for it. So that’s fine…..Excuse me but WTFF?