Why are healthcare denials sent to and shouldered by patients? If you go to an in network facility, that place is vetted by insurer. So why isn't a 'denial' a matter between the provider and the insurer and transparent to the patient?
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Why are there networks, health insurance companies, co-payments, payment disputes/ negotiations of prices, and people suffering from not receiving medical care?
Oh yeah, because this way it costs us significantly more and we can think we are doing better than others in life by acquiring a job where we have linked medical coverage too.
The fact that there are "classes" of healthcare is just repulsive.
Boy the new and old media are having a thesaurus day with the word "killed".
I guess unalived isn't popular anymore.
How could Brian do this to the shareholders?
Health care insurance should be handled by governments, or alternatively by law by non profit foundations
Some would argue that should be the case for all companies.
Imagine how much better for profit companies would function if they didn't have investors skimming off their profits.
For profit companies should be illegal.
Have you ever worked in government?
Getting the simplest shit done takes forever.
By contrast, getting things done in a private company is quick as hell by comparison.
I wouldn’t say government bodies “function better” in my experience.
All that said, healthcare is one thing I’d definitely like to see handled by the gov rather than privatized.
I said nonprofit. NGO. As in non government organization.
Sorry. I misattributed the government piece to you instead of one further comment up.
I can’t say I have any experience with NGOs to make a determination on that for myself.
I do have experience with NGOs. The only issue with them is that capitalism doesn't allow ethical business to thrive.
If for profit companies were outlawed, they'd function much better
You're argument here is quantity over quality - "these people kill a lot of other people with those decisions, sure... but they make those heavy decisions lightly and quickly and often with an algorithm! That FEELS impressive to me because I'm a toddler that responds to kinetic stimulus for the sake of it and I can't see any nuance!"
Also, part of what you're talking about is by design - Republicans shoot their constituents in the feet so those people can then have foot pain to complain about. Then, when complaining gets vocal, the gop politicians come in and say "we need to just get government away from your feet and they'll be less painful" ---- They are the "government" that shot you and you are the constituent with a hole in your foot.
So whine about government being slow some more.
For profit companies is capitalism and like it or not, it is by far the most successful way of doing things. It's so successful bthst it isn't even a contest.
What you need it capitalism with a boat load of restrictions to keep it fair. Restrict companies in size and revenue. Get to 5000 employees? That's it, you can't hire anymore. Get to X amount of yearly revenue? Taxes on anything above that gonto 100%. Companies cannot buy other companies. Limit what can be invested and how. Limit the powers of special interest groups created by companies. This way there will not be one big player, companies will actually have to compete. You get the power of capitalism without the bad parts. Now use the proceedings of that power capital to fund a good socialist framework that gives free education, free healthcare for all, free minimums like housing, food, etc.
What's your fitness function for "success"? Killing all life on earth? Then, yes, I'd agree with you.
But if your fitness function is "to deliver necessary goods and services to customers to satisfy their needs without causing mass extinction", then--no--capitalism isn't very successful
It worked! This is a valid tactic.
Unfortunately, this is only a temporary oscillation and they will soon recover and everyone will forget what happened. The damage must be done to the political structure that allows these companies to exist as they are
And we need more heroes like Muad'dib to remind us of that and to lead the charge.
Fucking A for some fucking A, this will probably sting them more than the death of their last CEO.
The aliens in Independence Day said it the best of UHC and their ilk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rw5MosKRm4
Edit: Companies, not people, to be clear.
Good, let it crash and burn and let it not be the only one
Free healthcare for all US citizens!
That is the only thing that gets their attention.
Elder CEO mentoring prodigy, "that's why you need state of the art security, if one of the plebs goes and murders you the shareholders will suffer in their quest for never ending profits"
....until it goes right back up in [insert timeframe]
Will we never learn?? Make it stick!! Take more action!! Please let this be the spark
Insurance companies are worthless.
Doesn't matter what you think really though, right? These businesses operate on measurable KPIs and if overall thresholds weren't being hit, something would happen.
If you were a manager with that attitude, you'd be a micro manager and we all know that that type of manager, in any sector, SUCKS.