←back to thread

167 points ceejayoz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | source
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 #
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 #
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 #
1. 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.