Most active commenters
  • wnoise(5)
  • gruez(4)

←back to thread

167 points ceejayoz | 11 comments | | HN request time: 0.339s | source | bottom
Show context
mrangle ◴[] No.43665532[source]
It sounds like Blue Cross may be feeling the pressure of needing to avoid the bad PR of turning down claims, but those claims still not meeting their insurance terms and financial models.

So they are tactically not paying the doctors after agreeing to, as perhaps the best legal chance to escape payment that still avoids the primary PR focus: the patient.

The public is going to now have pity on doctors, and from a strict terms of agreement standpoint they may have a good point.

However, these aren't normal times. And what we may be seeing is a type of insurance industry early death throe.

First, lets preface any further commentary by the fact that it must be kept in mind that the sole reason that doctors make a lot of money, at least "a lot" relatively speaking from certain perspectives and in certain roles, is the insurance industry. Otherwise, they'd be paid mostly like plumbers.

And so a shifting of financial pressure to doctors, or anyone else who is both politically and legally vulnerable, may be expected during existential changes in the insurance industry.

Next, I'll suggest that when a portion of the public looks to break the system, even for noble reason in their minds, that what they finally get may be completely unpredictable. And I'm not primarily speaking of this specific tactic, but rather of an unforeseen end-point.

Some unavoidable truths:

a. The insurance industry can only remain financially solvent when it has the ability to turn down claims, specifically those that the terms allow it to.

b. A certain portion of the public wants Universal Healthcare.

c. Any future denied claims will be framed as catastrophically unjust by this portion of the public, even if insurance carriers were to significantly (somehow) adjust their models to be able to operate while paying more claims and keeping premiums the same. There is no placating this portion of the public within the current system.

d. Some within this sector of the public, like Luigi Mangione, are criminally insane. They are willing to engage in terrorism and murder to destroy the insurance industry in the hope of eventually arriving at Universal Healthcare.

e. Some of the Press is politically supporting this criminally insane contingent.

f. If the Insurance industry can no longer function, or is otherwise forced to raise premiums beyond which many can afford in order to be able to pay out virtually all catastrophic claims, what will happen is either it will cease to exist or people will go without individual insurance and then businesses will stop offering insurance.

g. There is zero guarantee that the next step is Universal Healthcare. Saying that it is inevitable, for the United States specifically and after destroying the private insurance industry, is like saying that a manned NASA mission to Mars is inevitable because private aviation is deeply flawed.

The article author is a complete piece of shit for suggesting that the Brian Thompson assassination was due to anything other than the psychosis of a maniac. Mangione is criminally insane, and so are his sympathizers. At least to the extent that they aren't too low IQ to understand what happened while somehow still having an opinion.

replies(2): >>43665779 #>>43665960 #
1. wnoise ◴[] No.43665960[source]
"Criminally insane" and "psychosis of maniac" are incredible hyperbole.

The only reasonable word there is "criminally". Of course assassinations are criminal.

One doesn't have to be insane, psychotic, or a maniac to kill someone, or to let someone die. All it takes is valuing other things above the life taken. This is not that uncommon.

Now, you can think Mangione is wrong about the effects, that he did not have a rational plan that would get him his desired end goal. I think that's obviously true even. But that's just how most humans act most of the time, and is not insanity.

replies(2): >>43666008 #>>43666130 #
2. gruez ◴[] No.43666008[source]
and is not insanity.

So how would you define "insanity" then? You can nitpick about how those phrases don't match what the DSM-5 says or whatever, but the reality is that Mangione's actions are far beyond what the vast majority of people would do, even under the same circumstances.

replies(1): >>43666071 #
3. wnoise ◴[] No.43666071[source]
Oh, yes, highly unusual.

So are startup founders. Many of these fail, precisely because they too did not have rational plans that would get them to their end goals.

replies(1): >>43666125 #
4. gruez ◴[] No.43666125{3}[source]
You didn't answer my question. What is "insanity" then? What do you call people like the Unabomber or Osama bin Laden? Are they just a different variant of "startup founders"?
replies(1): >>43667167 #
5. mrangle ◴[] No.43666130[source]
These terms aren't hyperbole at all. Mangione is a psychopath.

Being wrong about the effects of (and rationale for) a crime is a symptom of criminal insanity.

For example, you think that the crime that you facilitate is "justice" for perceived wrongs but in reality it is only the execution of an innocent man with a family. Such a delusion is the definition of criminal psychosis.

>All it takes is valuing other things above the life taken.

Very seriously, see a skilled therapist. Tell them what you wrote. Hope that they are able to begin to help you.

replies(2): >>43667574 #>>43679442 #
6. wnoise ◴[] No.43667167{4}[source]
I haven't set a definition and really don't intend to, only saying the line must be quite far from where you are drawing it.

Tying it to willingness to kill for some goal cannot be it -- not every soldier, cop, and security guard is insane. There has to be some degree of break from reality, not disagreement with societal opinions of morality. (And of course all societies do endorse violence -- from the proper authorities, and against the right targets).

Osama bin Laden was a religiously-driven warlord. But not only was he not insane, he was quite effective for quite some time, and had significant support from the societies he was part.

The Unabomber absolutely could plausibly be argued to be insane -- his attorneys certainly pushed for it (though he rejected that attempt). And the psychological experiments he participated in could certainly have contributed to such a break. Throw in the standard trope of living as a hermit in the woods with limited social contact (which can both be a result of insanity and decrease mental stability), and there's enough there not to reject the label. But his bombing campaign just makes him a criminal, a problem for society, not insane.

replies(1): >>43667266 #
7. gruez ◴[] No.43667266{5}[source]
>Tying it to willingness to kill for some goal cannot be it -- not every soldier, cop, and security guard is insane.

How about violating bright red line laws/norms of the society you're in?

> There has to be some degree of break from reality, not disagreement with societal opinions of morality.

Okay but surely you agree that "I want abortion but my state bans it" is not the same kind of "disagreement with societal opinions of morality" as executing a CEO because you vaguely have grievances with the healthcare system?

replies(1): >>43667704 #
8. wnoise ◴[] No.43667574[source]
Arguing that Mangione is _criminally insane_ is arguing that he shouldn't be legally punished, that a mental disease prevented him from having the necessary mens rea to actually have his act be criminal. Are you sure that's what you want to argue? (Confinement while he remains criminally insane is certainly justified, of course.)

> For example, you think that the crime that you facilitate is "justice" for perceived wrongs but in reality it is only the execution of an innocent man with a family. Such a delusion is the definition of criminal psychosis.

"justice" and "innocent" are not facts about the world but societal judgements. Having different opinions about these is moral disagreement, not insanity, nor delusion. Expecting society to agree with you and maintaining that expectation even against evidence afterward would be delusion. Sometimes societies don't have fixed judgements. Is an abortion a medical treatment or an execution of an innocent child? Although I agree with one stance, and disagree with the other, neither is a delusion. It's a moral disagreement that remains one whether I live under laws that treat it one way, or the other.

> Very seriously, see a skilled therapist. Tell them what you wrote. Hope that they are able to begin to help you.

Don't be a dick.

Accurately describing other's morals is no reason to see a therapist. It says nothing about my morals or my sanity that I recognize a large fraction of fairly normal people do value lots of things above others' lives. Conformity and fitting in often enough, as witnessed by Hannah Aredt's phrase "the banality of evil". To the best of my knowledge I haven't contributed to excess deaths beyond the externalities of living in a first-world country, participating in its market economy, and the actions its government takes funded by the taxes I pay. I do actually value lives, so I am unlikely to attempt to take them except under extreme circumstances (and I most likely would not have the instincts to do so effectively; never been tested, and hope to never be).

Societies in general certainly don't treat lives as infinitely valuable, nor even equally valuable. They regularly make economic tradeoffs (and incoherent ones at that) that it's okay to take actions that increase the death toll as long as enough money is made from it. Society is happy to use and endorse violence -- so long as it's done by the right people to the wrong people.

9. wnoise ◴[] No.43667704{6}[source]
> How about violating bright red line laws/norms of the society you're in?

Isn't the word for that "criminal"? You can add intensifiers like "serious", "hardened", "deadly", etc to emphasize how bright the line violation is.

> Okay but surely you agree that "I want abortion but my state bans it" is not the same kind of "disagreement with societal opinions of morality" as executing a CEO because you vaguely have grievances with the healthcare system?

There certainly is a greater consensus for it; 50-50 is quite different than what I would guess is about 85%. And I'm for that consensus. This kind of violence becoming common would be disastrous. But that consensus certainly seems to be a lot less solid than it was a year ago, especially when you look at the youth. (I think there are several things contributing to that, but that consensus breaking down does not mean that 41% of 18-29 year olds are insane. That's just not what insane means.)

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/17/united-healthcare-ceo-killi...

replies(1): >>43668170 #
10. gruez ◴[] No.43668170{7}[source]
>Isn't the word for that "criminal"? You can add intensifiers like "serious", "hardened", "deadly", etc to emphasize how bright the line violation is.

So what, the only difference between a serial killer and some guy committing tax fraud is that the former is more "serious"/"hardened"/"deadly"? You don't think mental health has any role to this? When people mean "insane", that's what they're gesturing to, not what the DSM-5 or whatever says.

>but that consensus breaking down does not mean that 41% of 18-29 year olds are insane. That's just not what insane means.)

"acceptable" isn't the same as willing to undertake the action themselves. Mangione is being called "insane" because he actually killed someone, not because he answered yes on a poll asking whether it's acceptable to kill healthcare CEOs.

11. AlexeyBelov ◴[] No.43679442[source]
Who made this diagnosis? You, just now?