Most active commenters
  • candiddevmike(3)

←back to thread

167 points ceejayoz | 12 comments | | HN request time: 1.227s | source | bottom
Show context
ceejayoz ◴[] No.43664706[source]
Long read; these bits were notable to me:

> But the insurer’s defense went even further, to the very meaning of “prior authorization,” which it had granted women like Arch to pursue surgery. The authorization, they said in court, recognized that a procedure was medically necessary, but it also contained a clause that it was “not a guarantee of payment.” Blue Cross was not obliged to pay the center anything, top executives testified. “Let me be clear: The authorization never says we’re going to pay you,” said Steven Udvarhelyi, who was the CEO for the insurer from 2016 to 2024, in a deposition. “That’s why there’s a disclaimer.

> At the trial, Blue Cross revealed that it had never considered any of the appeals — nor had it ever told the center that they were pointless. “An appeal is not available to review an underpayment,” acknowledged Paula Shepherd, a Blue Cross executive vice president. The insurer simply issued an edict — the payment was correct.

> On several occasions, though, Blue Cross executives had signed special one-time deals with the center, known as single case agreements, to pay for their wives’ cancer treatment.

replies(5): >>43665139 #>>43665359 #>>43665603 #>>43665652 #>>43665927 #
HumblyTossed ◴[] No.43665139[source]
This is the frustration that leads to getting a dictator wanna-be elected President. People are SICK SICK SICK of these shenanigans and seriously want it to change.
replies(3): >>43665152 #>>43665314 #>>43665343 #
CamperBob2 ◴[] No.43665152[source]
How does electing a dictator who promises "Vote for me and I will make it worse" help, though? That's the part I don't get.

If the dictator promised to round up these CEOs and send them to El Salvador without a trial, that would be one thing... but the opposite is true, and I think the electorate understood that well enough.

replies(10): >>43665171 #>>43665175 #>>43665193 #>>43665198 #>>43665204 #>>43665282 #>>43665299 #>>43665301 #>>43665353 #>>43665385 #
1. candiddevmike ◴[] No.43665198[source]
30% of Americans would rather have nothing than see people who they consider undesirables have anything.
replies(2): >>43665233 #>>43665361 #
2. zarathustreal ◴[] No.43665233[source]
A charitable interpretation would be that they consider justice (consequences that fit the choices one makes) more important than ownership of material things

..and frankly they’re not wrong. No unjust system can maintain itself in the long term, the choice is “personal sacrifice” or “destroy everything” and it’s quite easy to make

replies(2): >>43665289 #>>43665311 #
3. CamperBob2 ◴[] No.43665289[source]
That seems like a narrow definition of "justice." Shouldn't it also encompass freedom from the consequences of prejudicial choices made by others? Not every negative consequence arises from one's personal actions, after all.
replies(1): >>43665310 #
4. rayiner ◴[] No.43665310{3}[source]
> Shouldn't it also encompass freedom from the consequences of prejudicial choices made by others

Not necessarily? That’s hardly within the traditional American notion of the scope of government. Core american principles focus on protecting people from the government, not the government protecting people from each other.

replies(2): >>43665383 #>>43665815 #
5. candiddevmike ◴[] No.43665311[source]
You can choose your race? Or the social hierarchy you're born into? Or your gender? What is unjust about equality?
replies(1): >>43665701 #
6. quickthrowman ◴[] No.43665361[source]
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”

President Lyndon Baines Johnson

replies(1): >>43665757 #
7. candiddevmike ◴[] No.43665383{4}[source]
> Core american principles focus on protecting people from the government, not the government protecting people from each other.

What part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" do you think doesn't involve protecting people from each other?

replies(1): >>43668339 #
8. zarathustreal ◴[] No.43665701{3}[source]
Everything about equality is unjust, it’s literally the opposite of justice. You cannot have equality without injustice, there’s no way to fairly redistribute resources without taking from people who’ve earned what they have and giving to people who haven’t
9. potato3732842 ◴[] No.43665757[source]
And that wasn't even his most spicy quote. That man is a goldmine when it come to politicians saying the quiet part out loud.
replies(1): >>43665832 #
10. wnoise ◴[] No.43665815{4}[source]
> not the government protecting people from each other.

That's literally the purpose of both criminal and civil laws.

11. ceejayoz ◴[] No.43665832{3}[source]
This is a critique on his part, of opposition to the Civil Rights Act he eventually got passed.
12. rayiner ◴[] No.43668339{5}[source]
Thomas Jefferson coined that phrase. Show me where he talks about a muscular government protecting people from each other.

To a certain extent, that’s a baseline function of every government, sure. But there is a tension between “a government big enough to protect people from each other” and a “government big enough to deprive citizens of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The founding American principles draw the line between those two in a different place than other traditions.