Doctor Conflicted About UHC Killing

[rousemark]

None of this justifies someone murdering him.

 

[goillini52]

None of this justifies someone murdering him.

Didn't say it justifies anything. Just more info about the CEO, and other UHC bigwigs.

 

[EckoRomeo]

Didn't say it justifies anything. Just more info about the CEO, and other UHC bigwigs.

What's the relevance of this information in this conversation? This is kinda like asking a rape victim what she was wearing.

 

[scagnt83]

So, we are only looking at the suffering of those that were denied coverage or limited in their coverage or couldnt get medical providers to pursue treatments.

Not sure I blame the CEO for all that, just like I dont give him credit for all the people whose lives were saved when the company did pay claims in the hundreds of thousands or millions in some case.

UHC paid out $87 Billion in claims & expenses in 2023 & profit margin was 5%. Not saying they are some great company, but we cant act like they dont do way more good than bad & no one deserves to die over it.

If you as an insurance agent business make more than 5% profit, does that mean you are making your customers suffer or pimping for the carriers that deny health, life, PC claims

This is bizarro world that people on both side of the political aisle are literally celebrating the death of a human & at the same time making the cold blooded coward that killed him into a heart throb celebrity

His murder certainly was not justified.

But the medical care and physician providing it saved their life.

The payment mechanism.... forced payment mechanism... did not save their life by "approving" the care necessary to save their life. That they are legally required to do.

But the payment mechanism can certainly cause their death, if it denies the care necessary to save their life and the Doctor never has a chance to save the sick person.

And it is 100% the fault of the CEO and executive team when increased denials are mandated by the C-Suite. They spent tens of millions on AI software that is literally marketed to insurers as increasing the amount of denials. Increased denials was corporate policy. And it caused needless suffering and deaths that could have been prevented.

The issue with health insurance profits has never been the profit margin. That does not tell the true story.

Carriers are essentially regulated on their profit margins through MLRs. The only way to increase Revenue, is to increase Premiums.

5% of a rapidly increasing 2 hundred billion... is the issue. Rapidly increasing is the key term there. They have zero incentive to negotiate and contain the cost of medical care.... because its literally the largest single factor that increases year over year profits.

 

[goillini52]

What's the relevance of this information in this conversation? This is kinda like asking a rape victim what she was wearing.

Look at the thread title.

 

[EckoRomeo]

His murder certainly was not justified.

But the medical care and physician providing it saved their life.

The payment mechanism.... forced payment mechanism... did not save their life by "approving" the care necessary to save their life. That they are legally required to do.

But the payment mechanism can certainly cause their death, if it denies the care necessary to save their life and the Doctor never has a chance to save the sick person.

And it is 100% the fault of the CEO and executive team when increased denials are mandated by the C-Suite. They spent tens of millions on AI software that is literally marketed to insurers as increasing the amount of denials. Increased denials was corporate policy. And it caused needless suffering and deaths that could have been prevented.

The issue with health insurance profits has never been the profit margin. That does not tell the true story.

Carriers are essentially regulated on their profit margins through MLRs. The only way to increase Revenue, is to increase Premiums.

5% of a rapidly increasing 2 hundred billion... is the issue. Rapidly increasing is the key term there. They have zero incentive to negotiate and contain the cost of medical care.... because its literally the largest single factor that increases year over year profits.

Carriers have zero incentive to contain cost? You ever seen an insurance policy? Why did carriers raise deductibles and copays if they don't try to contain cost? Why do carriers go out of network with providers? Why would they bother denying claims if they have no incentive to contain costs?

What was BCBS new anesthesiologist payment policy about if not about containing costs?

 

[EckoRomeo]

Look at the thread title.

That doesn't answer the question

 

[goillini52]

That doesn't answer the question

Then read the 1st post. If you don't see a connection........

 

[EckoRomeo]

Then read the 1st post. If you don't see a connection........

Or you could just answer the question…

 

[scagnt83]

Carriers have zero incentive to contain cost? You ever seen an insurance policy? Why did carriers raise deductibles and copays if they don't try to contain cost? Why do carriers go out of network with providers? Why would they bother denying claims if they have no incentive to contain costs?

What was BCBS new anesthesiologist payment policy about if not about containing costs?

There is a huge difference between rationing care and negotiating the price of care.

Actuarial data and Premium Approvals from the States are based on the Price of Care.

I have indeed seen a health insurance policy or two. Which is how I know that Deductibles and Co-Pays have nothing to do with the Price of Care.