• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    56 minutes ago

    So many internet arguments revolve around binary choices that don’t need to be binary or appeals to authority or hypocrisy as the only leg they stand on.

  • Allonzee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    What did you expect?

    We’ve been told for years that herp derp the economy is doing amazing! If you don’t agree there’s something wrong with you! if you got laid off or your corpo landlord raised your rent and you’re now dying in the street well then… look everybody! An evil homeless person lowering your property values with their continued existence! Git em!

  • .Donuts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    149
    ·
    5 hours ago

    You know, at face value he’s absolutely right. We shouldn’t claim care that is unnecessary or maybe even harmful. But where we disagree is that I think that decision should be left to our medical professionals

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      94
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Really what it should be is that if a doctor prescribes unnecessary care, they should go after the doctor, not the patient. Doctors have malpractice insurance. If the health insurance can’t win a case of malpractice, then they should pay the bill. Why are patients in the midfle here at all.

      • rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Really what it should be is that if a doctor prescribes unnecessary care

        That’s the core problem. The entity that defines unnecessary care is health insurance. And there are TONS of stories of them denying Diabetes medication for people with diabetes and anti-nausea meds to pediatric patients getting chemo.

        If they were doing the right thing, no one would be pissed off. The “recent target” was the one to decided to run on AI driven denials that were denying 90% of care for months.

        They are not fulfilling their duty to take the money from the subscribers and pay their righteous medical bills and instead using it as raw profit.

        They are employing their own ‘doctors’ to prove stuff that is definitely necessary is labeled unnecessary.

      • SmoothLiquidation@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        3 hours ago

        It’s the same trick as rebranding bank robberies to identity theft. It puts the blame on the consumer who can’t afford to defend themselves.

      • Kichae@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        4 hours ago

        This is still validating the profit incentive of private health insurance.

        If the doctor prescribes unnecessary care, it should be none of these peoples’ business, because they shouldn’t be allowed any stake in the decision whatsoever.

    • TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Insurance claims are approved or denied by medical professionals. In the state of NY it’s even required for a specialist to approve or deny specialist care.

      Some doctors are just absolute scum.

      • ayyy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Medical professionals that spend an average of 6 seconds per case. And keep getting caught with revoked/expired licenses. And well outside their area of expertise (the classic example is failed dentists deciding on cancer treatments).

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        4 hours ago

        They are done by medical professionals who have no obligation or incentive to serve the best interests of the patient. If your doctor fucks up, he can be found liable. If the insurance doctor fucks up, there is no liability whatsoever. Cases have been brought to court and then immediately thrown out because there is no legal basis for holding them accountable.

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 hours ago

          My insurance’s tactic to this sort of demand is to just completely ignore my requests/demands. They log an acknowledgement of my action, and then never do anything with it, ever.

      • .Donuts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Except in this case, they used AI to help them make decisions. The lawsuit is still ongoing so I shouldn’t speak in definitive terms, but considering the circumstances and evidence I think it’s pretty clear than they have tried to automate some processes and didn’t audit them properly.

      • Jesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 hours ago

        There is a lot of crap that they’re able to instantly deny through your plan’s terms and conditions.

        It’s worth reading the plan summary of what won’t be covered, even if it’s prescribed treatment. Some of the shit that’s hidden in there is fucked up.

        This year someone in my family started to have to pay out of pocket for their GLP1s because their diseases didn’t progress far enough for the treatment to be covered. They’d rather you hurry up and die than pay for expensive drugs that keep you alive for longer.

        • medgremlin@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          If they have cardiovascular disease or kidney disease, those are getting added as indications for the GLP-1’s so they might be able to resubmit the authorization/claim with those diagnosis codes added to get it covered.

          • Jesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 minutes ago

            Yeah, but the problem is, if tests / labs show the precursor indicators for those diseases, and you have a family history, they’ll still deny until you actually have the something like a heart attack or stroke.

            GLP-1s are the hot new thing, but it’s pretty common for insurance companies to deny expensive preventative care, even after all other avenues have been thoroughly explored.

            • medgremlin@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 minutes ago

              In my family medicine rotation a couple months ago, we got it approved for someone with pre-diabetes, high blood pressure, and stage 2/3 kidney disease (which is not very advanced. A lot of people over the age of 35-40 can technically fall into stage 1/2)

      • nul9o9@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I don’t have a source. But i’ve read they are incentivized to go through as many claims as they can, and not to approve too many.

  • rc__buggy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I miss Anonymous. Those fuckers would be figuratively burning down UHC right now.

      • spankinspinach
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I don’t have sources, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the OGs aged out or got caught, and the new gen that replaced them weren’t as ideologically driven or competent or something. I think they still technically exist but aren’t nearly as influential as they once were

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          4 hours ago

          It’s also not as easy to hack electronic systems anymore. It’s not that they are invulnerable, but the vulnerabilities are generally more complicated and difficult to exploit. Setting aside people still running Windows XP or something, vulnerabilities get patched pretty quickly today. State actors have the time and resources to still do straight up electronic hacking, but opportunities for individuals are sparse.

          Of course there is still the human element. Most data breaches done by individuals nowadays rely, at least in part, on social engineering.

        • CuddlyCassowary@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Another thought this just popped into my head is that the next generation may not have been brought up with the same fundamental hacking skills that were somewhat inherent in being technical in the late 70s-mid 90s. Could you still learn them?…Of course, but having grown up with BBSs and LoD (Legion of Doom, and the like) and pre-WWW, some things were just more prevalent when it came to learning about the guts of systems and “cybersecurity” (that word didn’t really exist back then).

        • CuddlyCassowary@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 hours ago

          In this economy?!?! /s…kinda

          Actually that makes sense, and saddens me a bit there wasn’t a contingent to pass the torch to.

  • motor_spirit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 hours ago

    gonna put this dumb mother fucker on an airbrushed tee like he’s already dead

    chalk yourself out ya big dumb bastard, show the sharks where that menstrual leak is bitch-made mf

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Did he not have a PR person tell him that video was a bad idea? Or more likely, did he not listen to their advice?

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Can we gamble on how long they have left?

    That’d be some good old fashioned capitalism.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I think that would be hilarious but no gambling site would allow it.

      the odds are too much in favor of the winners.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Doug Stanhope used to run a celebrity death betting pool where you could bet on which celebrity would be the next to die.

        No idea if it was legal lol.