Dumdums or the round ones that crack in a million pieces. Those things sucked. Roby with an all-day sucker after getting some castor oil
I think this is an example of the people online being the crudest and the loudest but not really the majority.
It is telling though, that on LinkedIn and Facebook among others that people aren't being sympathetic. Know a couple of people offline that aren't exactly sympathetic either. This is the same company where a judge had to recuse himself from a case involving UHC due to his experiences with them. And Brian Thompson wasn't even CEO then.
Of course we are sympathetic to the children. But the right wing was happy enough to raise the amount of time people spend in prison in California last election. That's certainly going to keep parents away from children, sometimes permanently. Strange that they didn't seem to care about that.
"Here's the assassin tip line. Whatever you do, do not call it and clog it up. Just don't do that." Yeah...the crudest and loudest aren't the majority.
From what I’ve seen and heard. A fair share of repugnants were cheering. We haven’t heard why yet. He was shot for a reason, it wasn’t a random shooting. I could be just as horrific.
I guess it was against insurance companies. I never saw it but the trailer was on TV. Here is Roger Eberts take on it. “John Q" is the kind of movie Mad magazine prays for. It is so earnest, so overwrought and so wildly implausible that it begs to be parodied. I agree with its message-- that the richest nation in history should be able to afford national health insurance--but the message is pounded in with such fevered melodrama, it's as slanted and manipulative as your average political commercial.” Wildly implausible !?
Here's another take. One that "seems" pretty likely. (Or wildly implausible) "Just over a year before United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was murdered this week in Midtown Manhattan, a lawsuit filed against the insurance giant he helmed revealed just how draconian its claims-denying process had become. Last November, the estates of two former UHC patients filed suit in Minnesota alleging that the insurer used an AI algorithm to deny and override claims to elderly patients that had been approved by their doctors. The algorithm in question, known as nH Predict, allegedly had a 90 percent error rate — and according to the families of the two deceased men who filed the suit, UHC knew it. As that lawsuit made its way through the courts, anger regarding the massive insurer's predilection towards denying claims has only grown, and speculation about the assassin's motives suggests that he may have been among those upset with UHC's coverage. Though we don't yet know the identity of the person who shot Thompson nor his reasoning, reports claim that he wrote the words "deny," "defend," and "depose" on the shell casing of the bullets used to shoot the CEO — a message that makes it sound a lot like the killer was aggrieved against the insurance industry's aggressive denials of coverage to sick patients."
Another thing to note is that AARP - who you would hope has the best interests of seniors in mind - co-brands a Medicare Advantage plan with... United Health. I wonder how much of a kickback AARP gets for this? I have always found it strange that the AARP should get into bed with any insurance company but I guess it's a money maker for both parties. And it's a major reason why I've never signed up as an AARP member. I just don't trust them.
I find the concern that people celebrating -- or at least being somewhat nonplussed -- about this assassination to be seriously misguided. This may be the moment where the public finally find their voice to dismantle our currently ridiculous health care system. Don't expect the public to be any more concerned with a murder like this than health insurers are with the thousands they sentence to death every year.
Health care has bad actors on all sides of the equation. Providers, insurers, and yes, even patients. Where there is a system, there will be those few who look to beat it to their advantage. If you are a doctor/dentist working for a large practice, your pay can be almost solely dependent on how many procedures you perform. Not hard to imagine the weight that can play on a person when recommending treatment. That may be oversimplifying but not far off. The entire system is far from perfect.
Always good to see such a well-reasoned post. Meanwhile... “I don’t have a problem with AARP endorsing travel packages,” said Marilyn Moon, a health policy analyst who worked for the group in the 1980s. But when AARP lobbies on Medicare issues while profiting off partnerships with those who are marketing to Medicare patients, “that certainly is a problem,” Moon said. https://www.tampabay.com/news/healt...p-have-a-billion-dollar-conflict-of-interest/ "Conflict of Interest in Nation’s Largest Special Interest Group: AARP" "AARP receives a flat annual royalty fee for covering the sale of the Medicare Advantage and Part D plans, but receives a royalty fee of 4.95 percent of premium revenues paid for Medigap coverage sold. Otherwise, AARP makes 5 cents on the dollar for each Medigap plan it helps sell. This provides a strong financial incentive for the group to aggressively sell, market, and renew as many policies as possible. This relationship has proven to be extremely lucrative. In 2019, AARP helped sell about $8 billion in total UNH Medigap premiums to its members, which at a 4.95 percent royalty fee, amounts to roughly $400 million into the pockets of the organization." https://mnrepublic.com/7792/feature/conflict-of-interest-in-nations-largest-public-interest-group/
It’s true. You don’t know what you are talking about. UHC Medicare Supplement policies require an AARP membership to enroll, but only at the time of enrollment. You can cancel you AARP membership anytime. UHC Medicare Advantage plans have no such requirement. The agreement between UHC and AARP MA plans is a marketing agreement. It makes sense for the largest senior advocacy group to endorse the largest Medicare carrier. I get you hate UHC, Medicare and probably your wife and dog, but you should hate the game, not the player.
It's interesting you choose to go the insult route rather than addressing the issue I raised, namely AARP's likely conflict of interest in the income it gets from cobranding and promoting United Healthcare Medicare products. Just as a reminder here are two media articles on this: https://www.tampabay.com/news/healt...p-have-a-billion-dollar-conflict-of-interest/ https://mnrepublic.com/7792/feature/conflict-of-interest-in-nations-largest-public-interest-group/ And, no, it doesn't make sense for the "largest senior advocacy group" to endorse any Medicare carrier. That leaves one with the impression that said advocacy may be influenced by the "nice little earner" they have with said insurance company.
What conflict? Why would the largest advocacy group endorsing the largest Medicare insurer be a conflict? I’m also curious as to how much of the premium of the MA plans AARP gets considering most of the policies I enroll my clients in have a $0 monthly premium.
Read the provided articles. "Jonathan Decker of the American Commitment, a free-market advocacy organization, criticized this relationship, “It’s time we pull back the curtain on AARP’s lucrative relationship with UnitedHealth Group. Corporate royalties now account for three times more of AARP’s revenues than membership dues from seniors. If you thought their lobbying on healthcare policies and support for price controls was being done with seniors’ interests in mind, just look at their books—and think again.”
Yeah, I read that. Doesn’t make sense if you understand how Medicare coverages work. UHC MA plans have a national network. Meaning they can be compatible to medigap plans in the ability for clients to have low or no premium plans that work nationwide. It makes sense for AARP to endorse the product that is best for their members.
Does AARP derive income from promoting UHC Medicare products? If the answer is yes then there’s a potential conflict of interest there for an organization that lobbies for its members. It’s really not difficult to grasp that if it’s deriving so much revenue from being in bed with a health insurance company that its lobbying may be compromised because of the significance to it of that revenue. Even an ex official acknowledges this in one of the articles.
Look through an AARP publication. They endorse a ton of things that are beneficial to their members. That’s what they do. And I am 100% positive UHC lobbies for their interests a hell of a lot more than AARP could.
I'm not going to stay in this debate y'all have going, but I took a quick look at the American Commitment site. Those people seem almost bone-chillingly libertarian. Their little line about "small government" really illustrates the typical disgust with decisions like Brown v. Board.