Insurers Are Using Cancer Patients as Leverage (wsj.com)
- Reference: 0179625234
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/10/02/0751244/insurers-are-using-cancer-patients-as-leverage
- Source link: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/insurers-usecancer-patients-asleverage-9f7d3f47
Research published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found that care disruptions lead to more advanced-stage diagnoses and worse outcomes. Similar contract disputes involved Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins University and University of North Carolina Health. New York lawmakers introduced legislation this year requiring insurers to maintain coverage for cancer patients during negotiations and until treatment concludes. Memorial Sloan Kettering's leadership described the practice as using patients as bargaining chips despite record insurer profits.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/opinion/insurers-usecancer-patients-asleverage-9f7d3f47
So Luigi was right? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they are going to threaten all of us with violence, how is it wrong for us to respond in kind?
Re: (Score:2)
Murder is almost always the wrong answer. Not only because it is wrong, but because it is usually ineffective in changing things. If you do not like their policies vote with your feet. There are other insurers out there. United Health Care should be particularly vulnerable, since they owe much of their preeminence to being a partner with AARP. An organization of retired (older) people seems unlikely to be happy with an insurer who is trying to cut cancer care.
Re:So Luigi was right? (Score:4, Insightful)
I definitely agree that murder is always wrong most most folks get their health insurance through work. "Vote with your feet" isn't really an option most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
> Murder is almost always the wrong answer.
Who said murder? This sounds like it is self defense. Kill or be killed in a literal sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like true Brown Shirt
Re:So Luigi was right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Today they wear masks and gear from Amazon and snatch people into unmarked vans. The supreme court ruled that arresting someone on the basis of language or skin color is perfectly acceptable. [1]https://www.cleveland.com/nati... [cleveland.com]
Are you still not going to admit that we've reached the Papers please! stage?
[1] https://www.cleveland.com/nation/2025/09/supreme-court-ruling-allows-ice-to-arrest-people-in-la-based-on-race-language.html
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Right after you admit Democrats have encouraged illegal mass migration on such a scale that the probability of someone being an illegal immigrant based only on their skin color and spoken language justifies the practice!
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
[1]https://www.supremecourt.gov/o... [supremecourt.gov]
There you are! anything else I can help you google?
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf
Re: (Score:2)
What does a reference to a video game character have to do with murder? If that is the dot you are connecting you should visit a therapist.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the news once in a while, and you'll learn this: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Mangione
Re: (Score:2)
More accurately it's about "how much". A single one? Yeah that's usually ineffective. A whole bunch? That's called a "revolution"
Re: (Score:2)
> Murder is almost always the wrong answer. Not only because it is wrong, but because it is usually ineffective in changing things.
Except that in this case, immediately after the murder, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield dropped a controversial proposal to limit coverage of anesthesia. So it was effective in changing that at least.
> United Health Care should be particularly vulnerable, since they owe much of their preeminence to being a partner with AARP. An organization of retired (older) people seems unlikely to be happy with an insurer who is trying to cut cancer care.
You think there is an organization of older people in the USA who are happy about any insurer? I doubt even UHC employees are happy with their health insurance.
The UHC-AARP deal was a deal between executives. It's not like they put it up to a vote with the members.
Re:So Luigi was right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Things won't change until congress has the same healthcare quality as a minimum wage employee.
Re: (Score:2)
> Things won't change until congress has the same healthcare quality as a minimum wage employee.
How do you convince those folks to vote themselves out of Cadillac plans just for being elected? I agree that it's the only way things will change, but it's not like the people have any say whatsoever in that decision. We elect these assholes to represent us, and they use the position to further their own interests, while being paid handsomely to tell us that it's impossible to further our interests because that would impact profits for those who literally provide zero god damned service. It's sickening, an
Re:So Luigi was right? (Score:4, Informative)
If healthcare is an important issue for voters people have to consider to stop voting for Republicans and yes that means voting for Democrats as much as it hurts some people to consider.
One party gave us the ACA (which would have had a public option if not for Joe Lieberman who after killing that caucused with the Republicans) the other fought it tooth and nail and things a Health-Savings-Account is all the plan anyone needs.
One party is open to a public option for the ACA, the other still wants to dismantle it and replace it for nothing.
One party wants to at least keep the skeleton of our system afloat for people and the other is fine with premiums skyrocketing and have no plan to handle that.
One party has 15 co-sponsors for Medicare-For-All and whichever you feel about that plan you do have 30% of their Senate electorate open to the idea compared to 0%
There are times to simplify things to "everybody sucks" but on healthcare it's pretty cut and dry the gap between them.
Re: (Score:2)
it amazes me that there are Americans that are so angry, they would rather destroy their lives and their country than vote for the party they perceive to be inferior for some reason. Seems a lot like what happened in Rome.
Re: (Score:2)
> If healthcare is an important issue for voters people have to consider to stop voting for Republicans
Don't even have to do that. Vote correctly in the primaries and the R team will quickly change their tone. Remember Obama basically copied Romney-care.
Re: (Score:2)
> If healthcare is an important issue for voters people have to consider to stop voting for Republicans and yes that means voting for Democrats as much as it hurts some people to consider.
> One party gave us the ACA (which would have had a public option if not for Joe Lieberman who after killing that caucused with the Republicans) the other fought it tooth and nail and things a Health-Savings-Account is all the plan anyone needs.
> One party is open to a public option for the ACA, the other still wants to dismantle it and replace it for nothing.
> One party wants to at least keep the skeleton of our system afloat for people and the other is fine with premiums skyrocketing and have no plan to handle that.
> One party has 15 co-sponsors for Medicare-For-All and whichever you feel about that plan you do have 30% of their Senate electorate open to the idea compared to 0%
> There are times to simplify things to "everybody sucks" but on healthcare it's pretty cut and dry the gap between them.
This is just one of the reasons I've voted Democrat in every election without a viable third party candidate available for every vote since I've come of age. I do think Democrats are a lesser of two evils, BUT THEY ARE THE LESSER of the evils. And when your choices are "Lesser evil," vs, "Wants to destroy your very existence," I would think the choice should be obvious, but I live in one of the reddest states in the nation. I don't really get it.
Re:So Luigi was right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember: Socialized Medicine is so horrible we only reserve it for Congress and our Veterans.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a vet and I can confidently say you don't want anything to do with VA healthcare.
Re: So Luigi was right? (Score:1)
So you would rather go into bankruptcy because your care cost you an arm and leg? Hell, I hate the current state of our healthcare, they are all now run by venture capitalists that are in it only for the money and they dictate what kind of care you get, not the doctors or nurses
Re: (Score:2)
I guess outcomes must vary because my step-father is a vet and the VA has done wonderful for him. Numerous cancer treatments, entire heart transplant, cover all the meds he needs. Maybe because he was determined to have suffered agent orange during Vietnam in which he was drafted to participate. Honestly, given what I've seen, I would be quite happy with his medical plan.
Re: (Score:2)
True socialized medicine (or socialized anything) won't let anyone step outside the system. It's good for a safety net, but it's unsustainable if the wealthy leave the system to seek private care. That's why socialism has to build walls around itself.
That doesn't help or work (Score:2)
So wealthy people can just buy their own healthcare when they are in Congress. All taking away Congressional Health Care does is prevent working class people from running for congress.
You can't punish The wealthy by taking away their salary because they already have so much money. You have to actually take the money away which nobody wants to do because as soon as you suggest that everyone becomes convinced that the next step is to take their houses away.
Ethically maybe, practically no (Score:3)
I could make an ethical case that Luigi acted in a morally acceptable manner. I don't really believe it, but one arguably could.
As a practical manner, assassination usually does not lead to the outcomes the killer seeks. People in general don't like targeted violence, most individuals are not essential, etc.
As a secondary matter, Luigi is smart, sexy, and clearly dedicated to his beliefs; if his impulse control worked a little better, he probably could have learned to be extremely persuasive. That's how y
Re: (Score:3)
> he probably could have learned to be extremely persuasive. That's how you change things - by making other people want to change them, too.
How'd that work out for Charlie Kirk?
T
Re: (Score:3)
From the perspective of causing change, pretty well, I'd say.
His death motivated his followers to a massive rampage of hurting certain others, which was one of his goals. Particularly getting professors fired - that was one of his favorite things.
Martyrdom is powerful.
Re: (Score:2)
See my signature.
Re: (Score:2)
Charlie Kirk was just walking his talk, clearly he offered up his own life so we could all have guns. He's like Gun Jesus.
Re: (Score:2)
Charlie Kirk was never trying for enlightened political discourse, he was out "owning the libs" for social media spots. This historic revisionism happening around him is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
> People in general don't like targeted violence,
As opposed to the untargeted kind?
I don't condone violence in general, but sometimes I understand its motivations. But I'm still trying to figure out what ANTIFA had against Starbucks storefront windows during the George Floyd protests. The association completely escapes me.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know a lot about those folks. From what I've read, there seem to be several related motivations around opposing capitalist exploitation, combined with some of the same incoherent anger you see in the Gropyer crowd.
Anyway, I think Starbucks is just a highly salient symbol of globalized capitalism, and angry people like to break things. Not sure it is much more complicated than that.
In my view, flashy and messy disorder, but cheaper than cop riots and you end up with a lot fewer people hurt.
Violence only helps them (Score:2)
Violence is a useful too for the right wing but not so much the left wing.
Violence requires a command structure to be effective and the left wing sucks at command structures for pretty obvious reasons.
Violence looks cool in the movies but it's basically useless. So unfortunately we need to use boring ass electoral politics to solve problems instead of 80s action movie coolness...
American Healthcare: Profit first, care last. (Score:5, Insightful)
We're a mentally sick nation. We allow the insurance industry, absolute parasites of the highest possible order, to dictate care for patients suffering the most traumatizing moments of their existence, all to make sure that profits aren't affected. I've tried having rational conversations with people about it, wondering why anyone thinks profit should come before health and providing decent care for people that need it, and every time I'm met with an obstinate regurgitation of Republican talking points about how important it is for people to take responsibility for themselves, and how *EVERYTHING* needs to boil down to profits and always must feed greed first. I'm tired, man. I'm tired of greed being our primary driver, and the number one sticking point of every conversation involving the possibility of change.
"BUT PROFITS" is not a rational response to every question. At some point, we have to start treating people as if they matter as well, or the continual indifference is only going to lead to further violence. This shit is unacceptable.
Recommended reading: Small is Beautiful, by E.F.Schumacher. The subtitle is "Economics as if People Mattered." Maybe we can start passing out copies to elected officials?
Re: (Score:1)
> Recommended reading: Small is Beautiful, by E.F.Schumacher. The subtitle is "Economics as if People Mattered." Maybe we can start passing out copies to elected officials?
If the system isn't rigged for the benefit of billionaires, then people will claim "muh socialism".
Re: (Score:1)
> "BUT PROFITS" is not a rational response to every question. At some point, we have to start treating people as if they matter as well, or the continual indifference is only going to lead to further violence. This shit is unacceptable.
Except... The only way it continues to exist is if it generates a profit. It's there's no profit, it stops happening.
Hospitals close, doctor's/nurses/techs leave, etc... Say I was a doctor (I'm not)... You call out the indifference, but you're indifferent to my needs. I'm not working for free. My college cost a lot of money.
As for socialism, it always fails. Always. People hold up Canada and England's public health service, but omit that you can wait a year or more for a simple MRI, and die in the queue.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> but omit that you can wait a year or more for a simple MRI, and die in the queue
Vs in the US where you wait an unknown amount of time trying to get "pre-approval" for your insurance to partially pay for it, but if they say no (because for some reason they get to decide what you need, not your doctors) then you just don't get it. Then you die while trying to come up with the money to pay for the MRI up front, or while trying to fight for them to let you pay for it upfront. And you don't leave any money behi
Re: (Score:3)
> Except... The only way it continues to exist is if it generates a profit. It's there's no profit, it stops happening.
Well, there's the degree of profit which ensures covering operating costs, paying the people who deliver the service a good wage, provides a buffer against hard times, and makes the organization reliable and resilient. Then there's the obscene, greed-ridden kind of profit wherein the majority of its beneficiaries are literal parasites. And I meant that "literal" - the add NOTHING except friction and waste, and the differ little from organized extortionists. The healthcare industry in the United States is li
Re: (Score:2)
> On that much we agree. I would add that losing one's home and having to declare bankruptcy over healthcare bills is simply not acceptable in any civilized society.
I live in a state with a "homestead" protection. It's kind of an odd provision. I can declare bankruptcy and keep my homestead. I'd lose other property, but not my primary residence. The only way I lose my house is to not pay the mortgage or my federal income & state property taxes.
As for safety nets... I think it's long past time we couple unemployment and COBRA coverage in some fashion. This would roughly double the amount needed to provide unemployment benefits, but provide a much needed safety
Re: (Score:2)
Treating people equally has its trade-offs. The difference is that everyone *gets* an MRI in Canada. You don't have to keep working for an abusive boss because you have concern for your family. That's an extortion scheme if I have ever heard of one. Also let's not ignore the fact that Canadian Conservatives want an American style system, so are constantly undermining any effort to make the public system any better. It has been proven that the provinces who integrate more private clinics into the system
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian health care doesn't treat everyone equally: [1]https://www.cma.ca/healthcare-... [www.cma.ca]
[1] https://www.cma.ca/healthcare-for-real/how-does-private-health-insurance-work-canada
Re: (Score:2)
From the doctors I've spoken with about it, they're sick of dealing with American insurance companies too, because they not only take the bulk of the profits, but they prevent doctors from doing what they can to actually help their patients. Our insurance companies, if they continue to exist, need HARSH regulation. This free-for-all shit is literally killing us.
And you can shit on socialized medicine all you want, but your made up stories about shit that doesn't actually happen, or happens at the same rate
Re: (Score:2)
This is going to get me downmodded immediately, and I don't have a ton of love for the US medical industry. But, given the state of modern medicine, they kind of have a point. First off, the US medical insurance industry makes about 1% profit. That's hardly rich-man stuff.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/2024-annual-health-industry-commentary.pdf
The core issue is that modern medicine has progressed to the point where most sick people can
Re: (Score:2)
> This is going to get me downmodded immediately, and I don't have a ton of love for the US medical industry. But, given the state of modern medicine, they kind of have a point. First off, the US medical insurance industry makes about 1% profit. That's hardly rich-man stuff.
I've known people that work in the insurance industry. That 1% profit is *AFTER* company sponsored trips to exotic locations three to five times a year for not just executives, but also top sales people, which is a hell of a lot of people. One of the guys, the one who married my mom for her second round, took her to Rome, Machu Pichu, and the Far East in the same year, all paid for by the company, staying in the most luxurious hotels you could imagine. I was happy for mom, but it sort of exemplified exactly
I'm just glad the Republican party (Score:1)
Protected us from the death panels of the public option that the Democrats started to push when the affordable Care act was in negotiations.
Re: (Score:2)
> Protected us from the death panels of the public option that the Democrats started to push when the affordable Care act was in negotiations.
Yeah, me too. Death panels should be like everything else in this country: For profits.
The headline and the thought... (Score:2)
The headline and the thought of using cancer patients as leverage, reminds me of this South Park clip...
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
--JoshK.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex8mO7jTpwM
Re: (Score:2)
It kinda sucks that I ended up laughing at something that's both so sad, and so true to the spirit of for-profit healthcare.
Working as intended (Score:5, Insightful)
The market of health insurance is to pay as little as possible and collect as much money as possible. It is not to provide health care. This is working as intended and should be celebrated as captialism in action. As a share holder I'd expect the company to improve profit margins by strong arming healthcare providers and patients. Anything less would reduce shareholder value.
Health care (Score:2)
The US does not have a health care system at all. It has a health insurance system that refuses or cancels rather than pay out.
Medicare for all.
What... (Score:5, Insightful)
What a bullshit healthcare system we have here in the US. Heaven forbid we use someone else's good ideas that we can see working in real life to fix it though.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
capitalist health care. cuba looks like 2000+ years more advanced
Re:What... (Score:4, Insightful)
> capitalist health care. cuba looks like 2000+ years more advanced
A major part of the reason for this is the American politics, where basically only lobbyists matter, not the people.
Re: (Score:3)
> someone else's good ideas
You can say damn, shit, and fuck all you want, but whatever you do don't say "socialism" or Americans will come for you.
Re: (Score:3)
You're correct which is ridiculous because it's not like we don't have very popular socialist institutions and programs in this country [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States
As long as you are not the last one out... (Score:1)
Social Security has to be the stupidest and most evil example of socialism I have heard of.
I am forced to pay into a literal Ponzi Scheme that if population does not keep increasing with investors compelled by threat of violence to pay into it will fail.
Primarily because the generally population is not responsible enough to save on their own for retirement they are compelled to and we are still paying for the great depression compounded may times over.
I do not want old people out in the streets begging or a
Re: (Score:2)
You don't want old people out in the streets begging, but you are staunchly against that which prevents them from begging and don't have any alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
> You don't want old people out in the streets begging, but you are staunchly against that which prevents them from begging and don't have any alternative.
He does not want them out in the streets begging not because he cares but because they are an eyesore. If they would just die once their working lives are over there would ne no need for social security.
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to talk alternatives!
Foremost I would hope that old people saved some money and can provide for themselves.
But I understand we cannot 100% count on that, and even if every old person had tried to be responsible things can go sideways.
So next I would hope for traditional "safety nets" of family and community to kick in.
Where old people would have had children and contributed to society and their children would be responsible and take care of them, or their community would have the means to provi
Re: (Score:2)
The concept is perfectly sound, what we have is just poorly structured and neither political party has done anything about it.
There's also a hell of a lot more in that link then just social security.
Re: (Score:2)
> Primarily because the generally population is not responsible enough to save on their own for retirement
You're under the delusion this would work under a falling population.
The total quantity of money flowing in the economy is a representation of the total amount of goods and services in existence. Your savings, as an absolute number, is meaningless. What matters is what percentage the total quantity of money, which is to say, of all goods and services, your savings represents.
If the total number goes up faster than your savings number goes up, all those savings of yours will represent a lower percentage of a
Re: (Score:2)
Social Security is only in financial trouble because the politicians are bribed and don't raise taxes on rich people who get a real bargain with their SS tax capped at a ridiculously low income level. They get a real bonus far beyond their contributions.
Everyone else gets a fair return on their contributions to the fund.
Re: (Score:2)
SHUT UP, fucking stupid MAGAt. WTF are you doing here?
How many years do people live after they retire? I retired at 70, after working for a living since I was 18. Then there's my late wife, who worked for 25 years before she died at 43.
If you can't figure that one out, you're too stupid to own a computer. Ponzi scheme my ass.
Re: (Score:1)
most republicans still consider obama socialist so what distinction is left.
thats how you like it because you dont actually care about this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
> but whatever you do don't say "socialism" or Americans will come for you.
Practically speaking, it's not a useful word because it has so many meanings, that if you want to be clear you have to explain which of the meanings you intended.
Careful what you wish for (Score:3)
Here in the UK healthcare is free at the point of use (obviously we pay in taxes and national insurance) but its far from being the best system in europe never mind the world and it costs us something like 10-15% of GDP to run each year depending on which year you look at.
Re:Careful what you wish for (Score:5, Insightful)
Our healthcare system is over twice as expensive as yours per capital [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . You're getting one hell of a deal relative to us.
Also, from what I understand a lot of your current healthcare problems have more to do with a decade of the Tories radically underfunding you NHS relative to every other country with similar systems.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
Re: (Score:2)
> Our healthcare system is over twice as expensive as yours per capital [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . You're getting one hell of a deal relative to us.
Your healthcare is twice as expensive because sick people are seen as a potential source of profit for shareholders first and foremost, and people who are no longer profitable should basically die.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
Re: (Score:2)
People tell me it's the best healthcare system in the world!
Re: (Score:2)
The US medical system is designed to ensure profit insurance companies, hospital corporations, pharma.
Any benefit to health is merely a secondary side effect.