←back to thread

167 points ceejayoz | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.556s | 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 #
HumblyTossed ◴[] No.43665171[source]
Because people are desperate for something to change. The status quo is literally killing people.

I'm not saying I agree with their voting decision, but I can, in part, understand their frustration.

replies(5): >>43665320 #>>43665473 #>>43665481 #>>43665490 #>>43665536 #
1. pavlov ◴[] No.43665536[source]
But in fact the candidate who pretends to be the alternative is supported by the very same vested interests that the voters hate. Wall Street and healthcare CEOs spent big on Trump.

This is a great achievement of the American media environment: people vote for the status quo fully believing they’re voting against it. And somebody ending up in a prison in El Salvador is the sacrificial lamb that is needed to make this equation work.

replies(1): >>43665842 #
2. mikeyouse ◴[] No.43665911[source]
“Big pharma” spent nothing on Bernie Sanders because healthcare execs hate him and he doesn’t take money from corporate PACs. Individual, low level employees donated to him for the same reason they donate to any other politician. This has been widely known and understood since the baseless false equivalency was raised months ago and that you still repeat it just demonstrates the depths of the bad faith.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-rfk-jr-misrepresented-...

replies(1): >>43667485 #
3. monetus ◴[] No.43667093[source]

  Big Pharma spent big on Bernie Sanders 
How did you come to this conclusion?
replies(1): >>43667214 #
4. ceejayoz ◴[] No.43667214{3}[source]
They really, really wanted it to be true.
5. Whoppertime ◴[] No.43667485{3}[source]
"Corporations themselves cannot donate directly to federal candidates, but they can make donations through corporate PACs. The owners of companies and their employees also can make individual donations. For donations that exceed $200, campaigns are generally required to ask for information about the industry in which the contributor works, and they are required to disclose that information if provided.

In the 2019-20 Congressional funding cycle, Sanders received more money from people employed in the field classified by OpenSecrets as "pharmaceuticals/health products" ($1.4 million) than any other member of Congress. He also received roughly $400,000 from people employed in "pharmaceutical manufacturing."

This does not mean he received nearly $2 million from "the pharmaceutical industry," — it means the money was from people employed, in any capacity, in that field." So pharmaceutical companies cannot donate money directly to candidates, so they fact check it as false, saying it was the employees donating the money and not Pfizer directly, but acknowledging he did receive $1,400,000 from people that work in pharmaceuticals/health products, and $400,000 from people working in pharmaceutical manufacturing. Are we to presume that there is no strings attached when Bernie Sanders is receiving the money? Or are we supposed to offer the benefit of the doubt you wouldn't offer to a Republican politician who said that he didn't receive 1.4 million dollars from the NRA, but employees of the NRA, and a further $400,000 from people in Firearm Manufacturing

replies(1): >>43668488 #
6. monetus ◴[] No.43668488{4}[source]
This would be like saying the gun rights activists are only doing what the NRA tells them. Does the NRA have employees in the same numbers as the entire pharmaceutical+ industry? In your hypothetical though, in those numbers, it would be weird to think all the donors were paid intermediaries for the lobbyists and CEOs. I have trouble believing that the people invested in the industry and supporting sanders were paid intermediaries as well. That is fairly conspiratorial barring evidence otherwise.