CEO of US healthcare insurance company shot.

[Seeker]

There is not a lot of sympathy in the various sub-reddits today over the killing of the CEO, some of the comments are brutal (I haven't linked to those).

Then you see that he was CEO of United Healthcare and they are the biggest denier of claims:
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=htt...zytdox4e1.jpeg

No justification for his killing though.

Note: there are over 500,000 bankruptcies every year caused by medical debt in the US, which is 40% of all bankruptcies.

This announcement from Blue Cross (another insurance company) stating they won't cover all anaesthesia costs for some surgeries pours fuel on the fire.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=htt...s4j1pw4e1.jpeg

The NHS is a mess and we need to get better value for the money it costs but it beats the current US health insurance based system hands down (imho). I have written my first email to my new MP (Melanie Onn - Labour) to let her know about my feelings over the creeping privatisation of the NHS).

[Craig380]

It's a horrible killing but it's also not difficult to see why someone has been driven over the edge to either do it, or hire it done.

I mean, the main aim of insurance firms is to try and deny claims wherever possible, but US health insurers seem to take this to a different level.

My friend's son is only alive today because Obamacare paid for treating his super-rare brain cancer after the claim was refused by his parents' supposedly comprehensive medical insurance. And yet the US has just voted in the party that intends to dismantle the Affordable Healthcare Act.

Universal healthcare that is free (or very low-cost) at the point of access is one of the greatest achievements and treasures in any society, and we all have to accept that if that's what we want, we have to pay taxes to support it - especially in our society with people living longer than ever, with more complex ailments.

Healthcare cannot be made 'efficient' or 'run like a business' because that's not how health and illness works. Diseases and the results of accidents are complex, what you start out treating all too often reveals other problems that need further treatment. John Harvey Jones clearly explained this in his 'Troubleshooter' programme for the BBC 30+ years ago, yet successive governments still fall for that false grail of 'efficiency' and listen to the siren voices of private healthcare firms who simply cherry-pick the low-risk procedures and chuck the rest back to the NHS for them to deal with.

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by Craig380

And yet the US has just voted in the party that intends to dismantle the Affordable Healthcare Act.

It seems that many that voted for Trumpelthinskin didn't realise that ACA (Affordable Care Act) is the real name for Obamacare. You have to admire the Republicans at their success in getting people to vote against their own best interests.

As the felonius one said earlier: "I like uneducated people" and now Musk wants to defund the Department of Education (that sets standards and helps kids with special needs)

[Craig380]

Originally Posted by Seeker

It seems that many that voted for Trumpelthinskin didn't realise that ACA (Affordable Care Act) is the real name for Obamacare. You have to admire the Republicans at their success in getting people to vote against their own best interests.

I'd read something along those lines too. It's a pity that all those Trump supporters didn't 'do their own research' ....

[redtrummy]

Doing research is usually helped if you can read! I totally despair at how he gets away with what he says and is then automatically believed

[Ruffy]

Personally I have a slightly more nuanced view on healthcare - it's not as simple as public vs private.

The important thing to retain is the principle that, as far as is practicable, treatment should be available based only on medical need, not ability to pay.

Of course the challenge is that there cannot be infinite funding and so there must be some limits, which unfiortunately means some will not get all the help they'd like. Also, with 'free at point of use', there is no intrinsic discouragement against abuse or waste by 'patients'.

I think there is still scope for some business-like thinking to try to ensure maximum value is derived from any funding provided - for me 'effectiveness' is probably a better word than 'efficiency'. Any service provider will tell you about the challenges of predicting demand in an uncertain future, but the way to 'balance the books' is not to try to withhold primary service from those with legitimate need.

[Seeker]

You can begin to see why many Americans have said that their "thoughts and prayers" are out of network for this man (a US healthcare statement meaning you're not covered), when you read this:
https://us.yahoo.com/news/murdered-i...175638581.html