• TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Way to go Elevance Health and the Centene Corporation!!! Women 🙏Can 🙏Be 🙏Monsters 🙏Too!!!

  • Bosht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    None of these people look like they’re normal or have a healthy mental state. Could be bias, sure, but something seriously seems off about all of them to me.

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I switched to a cheaper insurance plan this year. Not gonna bore with the details but I think I was doing the math wrong previous years and looking at the price of brand prescriptions instead of generic and it messed up my spreadsheets. Anyways, in the past copays have been pretty cheap for urgent care. I had testicle pain recently and went because I was worried it was torsion and there’s only so many times I can read “if you don’t get it fixed with 12 hours there’s 50% chance to lose it” or whatever lol. It ended up being a UTI I think. But they had me come in for a follow-up. The follow-up was the same price as the initial visit just for them to basically say “yeah, you’re fine if nothing else happened”. That cost me ~$150. It’s just infuriating. Like, I sort of get it, but it would’ve been so much better if they just told me only to come back if symptoms don’t improve or ultrasound results showed something fishy.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    56
    ·
    16 hours ago

    You realize without health insurance companies more people would die, right? It would just be everyone only getting the care they alone can afford without insurance.

    • OR3X@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      15 hours ago

      First world countries have this thing called universal healthcare for their citizens.

        • chetradley@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Lol. When exactly did US voters get an option to vote for universal healthcare?

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            15 hours ago

            It’s a core DNC stance. They tried to pass it the moment they had supermajority with caucusing Ind for 72 days in 2013, but the Ind betrayed us and we lost it by 1 vote in the senate. Instead we got the medicaid expansion and CHIP renewals which support 79 Million Americans currently.

            The fact that the GOP is currently trying to gut it is even more proof that this is a clear partisan issue.

            If people voted for Universal Healthcare then we would have it. But they don’t vote for it.

            • chetradley@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              15 hours ago

              So who did we fail to elect that would have gotten us universal healthcare?

              • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                15 hours ago

                Democrats. The DNC stands for the Democratic National Committee, they’re one of the nations two core political parties.

                • chetradley@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  12 hours ago

                  I know what the DNC is. I’m asking who we specifically could have elected that would have gotten us universal healthcare. It wasn’t even on the platform agenda for 2024.

        • OR3X@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Yes, it’s totally the voters fault and has nothing to do with the broken system that is kept in place by powerful corporations bribing (lobbying) those in charge to keep the system broken for their own benefit and profit. You fucking donkey.

            • OR3X@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              Obvious bad faith argument; I’m not going to waste my time engaging with you any further.

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              Which side my vote is on also hasn’t changed in decades. Arguably a big reason I live where I do is finding other people who also vote for our future, everyone’s well being. However voting between fascists and centrists isn’t good for anyone

        • _lilith@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          14 hours ago

          That would be called 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 the murderers. The healthcare industries could in theory decide to save many more people without going bankrupt. They are still murderers even if half of the us voted to hand them a knife

    • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      Incorrect, a healthcare system does not require for-profit insurance companies to serve the health needs of it’s members.

      I assume you made your comment out of ignorance and not as an attempt to spread misinformation. Check out the single payer model as an example of a full healthcare system that does not utilize for-profit insurance.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Alright but you also don’t have to use the for-profit coverage if you don’t want to. Maybe instead of organizing impotent murders we should be organizing nonprofit and cooperative healthcare coverage businesses.

        • Botanicals@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Okay go ahead? Maybe instead of throwing out opinions you haven’t done any research on you should gain a basic understanding of how the USA healthcare system works and how people are stuck with what they’ve got 👍 maybe you’ll see why people are cool with murdering these murderers

    • chetradley@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Yeah, I’m so glad that we have health insurance companies to take our money first, then deny our claims so that we can die poor.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        15 hours ago

        They approve more than they deny by far. The worst example would is probably UHC and even they only denied between 18-32% depending on who you ask.

        And, very few people apparently know this, but you can and should appeal those coverage denials.

        By the numbers, health insurance allows more people to get coverage than without, and therefor are a net positive.

        I’m an advocate for singlepayer, I don’t think health insurance companies should exist, but if we don’t convince citizens to vote differently then we’re not going to accomplish any good at all by killing some expendable erectile dysfunctional suits.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          they only denied between 18-32%

          Only

          health insurance allows more people to get coverage than without

          Yet there are more than two choices. It’s not useful to claim the current system is a net positive because the only worse option is no coverage

          you can and should appeal those coverage denials

          Every medical provider I’ve dealt with has people to handle this. They have to spend money hire extra people to redo paperwork, resubmit claims, until it comes through. Is this a good use of anyone’s time or money?

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 hours ago

            There are only two choices, insured or uninsured. The third choice is locked behind voting blue and demonstrably the USA would rather die.

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              From over here in one of the bluest states, believe me I know. The rest of y’all struggling to vote against fascism, and we’re trying to hit 70% blue

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      That’s an astonishingly ignorant statement that assumes health insurance provides any care, or that insurance is the only way for people to afford care. Willfully ignorant, perhaps, because anyone who has paid attention over the last decade would have heard this discussed if they weren’t living under a rock.

      Insurances are middlemen extracting money from you on the chance you might get ill or need care, and then decide whether or not your illness is worth the trouble of giving you any of your own money back to cover it.

      We did fine without widespread medical insurance 50 years ago. Many countries do fine with single-payer care - in fact most of them besides the US do. And many of those countries have better overall health than Americans do and pay less to enjoy it.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            15 hours ago

            Oh but the thing is I have gotten terribly sick before, and I’ve seen a doctor and I got all the treatment I needed because I have good coverage. If I had to pay for everything on my own? I’d still have gone in to see a doctor if it meant debt. If they denied me treatment I’d set up my estate to sue them in the case of my death.

            Our system sucks. But it can get a lot worse, very quickly.

            • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              15 hours ago

              Really fixated on the absurd take that the only way to have care is out of pocket at American health care costs? You’re a deliberate fool. Blocked.

                • AA5B@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  13 hours ago

                  You’re spending a lot of time trying to defend that it could be worse when everyone is saying it needs to be better. You’re trying to defend the status quo on the ground that no coverage would be worse when everyone else is saying the rest of the civilized world has examples doing much better

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      How many would die if our health care system wasn’t designed to deny claims, didn’t insert paperwork, process and overhead, didn’t incorporate huge profiteering opportunities? How many would die if everyone were covered? How many would die if coverage were a medical decision instead of medical decisions forced by affordability? How many would die if there were no need for medical debt and bankruptcy?

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Idk why dont we design our healthcare that way? I’ve been voting to do that every election my adult life and the rest of you are masturbating to murder as if it somehow promotes the idea.

  • Agent641@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Maybe a deck of cards is in order. Populated with the top excecs in US healthcare

      • blarth@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Wow. It would be terrible if someone were to buy a bunch of decks of those cards and drop them around heavily populated areas where there are likely to be people displaced from their homes indirectly through corporate greed.

    • sheetzoos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      This would sell well AND everyone would know what greedy murderers look like so they can stay safe.

  • Kystael@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Can a healthcare company CEO be a nice human ? Because for me the principle of the company is good I guess. i’m not american and most of our health expenses are handled by my country so I’m not USAn enough to understand.

    • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      15 hours ago

      The way health insurance works is we (or more likely our employer) pay them, then when we go to the doctor they pay (some of) the bill. So, if you want to maximize profit as the insurer, you would find any way you can to not do the bill paying part.

      tldr, their job is to kill people for profit.

    • meowMix2525@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      To achieve that level of wealth and maintain that kind of position, you must be willing to exploit people. It is a system that self-selects for the worst kinds of people that care about personal enrichment above everything else. It doesn’t really matter how they treat people to their face.

    • KombatWombat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      The ACA (Obamacare) requires that health insurance companies spend at minimum 80% of their revenue on paying out claims, meaning profit is only what’s left over from the remaining 20% after all other operating costs are addressed. They also need to reserve a certain portion of money to be available at hand for claims in case they exceed revenue for a period, similar to a bank. So unfortunately even a nonprofit health insurance organization is going to have high costs to its members simply because medical expenses are so high in America.

    • TechAnon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Yes, there are some not-for-profit healthcare organizations that make more money when members are healthy. This is the best model for people.

    • Delphia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It IS possible to have an ethical for profit health insurance company, but difficult.

      The ceo/board has an obligation to maximise profit for shareholders, there is such a thing as a “minority shareholder lawsuit” so even if you control 90% of the shares, if 10% of the shareholders decide that you arent acting to make them as much money as possible they can still sue. There are ways around this like having the companies mission statement be “95% of premiums will be paid out as customer claims.” Or similar. Making their money by having a larger market share or by vertical integration.

      It could be done ethically, but it wont be.

  • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 days ago

    Superhero movie villains are usually people or entities trying to bring about social change. They never seem to be villains who encourage death inside the current status quo though.