United Healthcare CEO shot to death in front of NYC investor meeting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry

To bad digitaldeath isn’t posting, he would call you a bootlicker.

---

He wouldn’t be wrong.

I like how multiverse spouts off about anesthesiologists. I work with anesthesiologists every day and still work with CRNAs, that’s “nurse tech” to you MV. Sure for young healthy patients a CRNA is adequate for elective procedures. For older, sick, injured all of the above, I know who I want taking care of my patients or me. We’re a rural regional hub for specialty care that draws from a rural critical access network of small hospitals serving around 300,000 people. Those hospitals are all staffed with CRNAs. All patients with anything other than good health needing elective surgery come here. Anesthesiologists probably have one of the higher stress jobs in medicine along with heinous work schedules and hours. I would say the pay is commensurate with the job. I’m not an anesthesia provider.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Profit seeking corporations fucking suck in general, and as such shouldn’t be placed in charge of denying life saving treatment or decisions that could lead financial ruin for 99.9% of the population should they have the right type of bad luck.

Example of suckage:

Attachment 506941
Attachment 506942

https://bsky.app/profile/rincewind.r.../3lcvx6jl7oc2l

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

I like how multiverse spouts off about anesthesiologists. I work with anesthesiologists every day and still work with CRNAs, that’s “nurse tech” to you MV. Sure for young healthy patients a CRNA is adequate for elective procedures. For older, sick, injured all of the above, I know who I want taking care of my patients or me. We’re a rural regional hub for specialty care that draws from a rural critical access network of small hospitals serving around 300,000 people. Those hospitals are all staffed with CRNAs. All patients with anything other than good health needing elective surgery come here. Anesthesiologists probably have one of the higher stress jobs in medicine along with heinous work schedules and hours. I would say the pay is commensurate with the job. I’m not an anesthesia provider.

---

The average salary for an American anesthesiologist in 2023 was $472,000. Anesthesiologists top out as the highest-paid profession in all of America.

Anesthesiologist providers very often have been found participating in surprise billing and overcharging. As a result state and the federal government passed surprise billing laws, "prices paid to anesthesiologists in hospital outpatient departments and ASCs decreased after these states passed surprise-billing legislation. Their experience offers early insights into how prices may change under the federal No Surprises Act and in states that have recently passed their own legislation."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2782816

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

Clutch your pearls harder. Violence will always be an answer, when dialogue breaks down and things get bleak people will resort to violence. I’m not saying that is the case with this murder though. Seems like a kook and not motivated by desperation.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Pretty sure some Prussian dude had an idea along those lines.

Luigi Mangione. Arrested at a McDonald's in Altoona PA on various charges. Looks like the cops / feds got the assassin.

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

Health insurance should prioritize the policy holders needs 1st. And then fight the hospital about overcharges after. If the insurance thinks the hospitals are price gouging, then they can sue the hospital and the hospital, drug provider have to show proof for why something costs as much as it does. this would likely result in standardization of healthcare costs.

---

Counterpoint. And I'm not saying I believe the following but have thought about what I'm about to say. And I have a great amount of respect for docs and know some great people who are docs. I should probably ask them instead of you knuckleheads.

When is the last time you've heard a doc or hospital say "This is what you need, I'm trained in, but I'm just not going to do it"? I've heard plenty of "Sorry, your insurance company won't approve this procedure so we can't do it". Seems like saying we can do it but won't unless we get paid. Pharmaco..."We have a drug proven to be of major benefit in treating your condition but you can't have it until your insurance says so"...pay me or die bitches. Insurance companies don't administer care. Docs and hospitals do. Maybe they could just administer the care and then have their bloated hospital administration sue the insurance company for the money. If they provided life saving measures, seems like it would play well publically and the powers that be would have to side with the hospitals.

They all want paid but I'm not sure who is pulling the biggest string.

I'm with Otzi. Blow the whole thing up and start over. It needs to happen. And not replaced by the "concepts" being floated right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conundrum

When is the last time you've heard a doc or hospital say "This is what you need, I'm trained in, but I'm just not going to do it"? I've heard plenty of "Sorry, your insurance company won't approve this procedure so we can't do it". Seems like saying we can do it but won't unless we get paid. Pharmaco..."We have a drug proven to be of major benefit in treating your condition but you can't have it until your insurance says so"...pay me or die bitches. Insurance companies don't administer care. Docs and hospitals do. Maybe they could just administer the care and then have their bloated hospital administration sue the insurance company for the money. If they provided life saving measures, seems like it would play well publically and the powers that be would have to side with the hospitals.

---

A lot of administrators have transitioned to pay based on RVUs (Relative Value Units) as a way to compensate for physician services, including those provided in hospitals. So what's happening is physician's are being pushed to increase the volume of work and volume of billing to generate more revenue. The more RVUs a provider bills, the more reimbursement they receive.

When you hear providers talk about increased workloads and all the EHR electronic paperwork etc, a lot of it has to do with billing and RVUs. A good speech by Johns Hopkins dr. Marty Makary:

"We are so busy in our health care system billing and coding and paying each other and every stakeholder has their gigantic lobby in Washington D.C. and everybody's making a lot of money except for one stakeholder, the American citizen. They are financing this giant expense of health care system through their paycheck deduction for health insurance and the Medicare exercise tax as we go down this path of billing and coding and medicating."

Attachment 506947

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

The average salary for an American anesthesiologist in 2023 was $472,000. Anesthesiologists top out as the highest-paid profession in all of America.
an[/url]

---

Bullshit

https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-...areers-1735995

Although it’s sad that Derm outranks gas passers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

Sure, here's a Canadian example of woman who is diagnosed with cancer and told she has maybe 2 years to live and that she is not a candidate for surgery but Canada would provide medical help committing suicide. The woman decides to consult with foreign doctors and get treatment in Baltimore.

“Universal healthcare really doesn’t exist,” Ducluzeau said. “My experience is it’s ‘do it yourself’ health care and GoFundMe health care:

https://globalnews.ca/news/10118619/...united-states/

---

That story shows that she was diagnosed sometime in December - then saw a surgeon in January to discuss whether or not to do HIPEC surgery - and that surgeon said she wasn’t a candidate. HIPEC was available - just this particular surgeon’s opinion was that it wasn’t appropriate for her.

She went for a second opinion and this surgeon disagreed and said she is a candidate.

She received the surgery but wishes the original surgeon had felt she was an appropriate candidate.

It makes zero mention of whether or not she went for a second opinion in her home country
- the costs of which would be covered by her universal health care coverage.

It’s an interesting story - and it does expose failings that system for how slow it was for her to see a medical oncologist (not a surgeon).

But you now should follow through to the end of what you were stating by proving how the original surgeons medical decision was based on the cost of the procedure - I don’t see how this news article proves or even suggests that.

[ATTACH]5[emoji[emoji642]4[emoji642]][emoji642][emoji[emoji642]45]4[emoji[emoji642]44][/ATTACH]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

That story shows that she was diagnosed sometime in December - then saw a surgeon in January to discuss whether or not to do HIPEC surgery - and that surgeon said she wasn’t a candidate. HIPEC was available - just this particular surgeon’s opinion was that it wasn’t appropriate for her.

She went for a second opinion and this surgeon disagreed and said she is a candidate.

She received the surgery but wishes the original surgeon had felt she was an appropriate candidate.

It makes zero mention of whether or not she went for a second opinion in her home country.

It’s an interesting story - and it does expose failings in how slow it was for her to see an oncologist (not a surgeon)

But you now should follow through to the end of what you were stating by proving how the original surgeons medical decision was based on the cost of the procedure - I don’t see how this news article proves or even suggests that.

---

A woman with aggressive stage four cancer called BC Cancer to ask how long it might be to see the oncologist and was told it could be weeks, months, or longer, they had no idea.

Two-and-a-half months after receiving her diagnosis and told that she may only have two months to two years to live she managed to finagle a telephone appointment with an oncologist at BC Cancer.

You get the difference between the surgeon and the oncologist right?

I mean tell me no if you don’t so I can go spend time doing something better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vt-Freeheel

Attachment 506947

---

Can't be real? I mean... tell me you're a complete clown Elom, without telling me you're a complete clown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

You get the difference between the surgeon and the oncologist right?

I mean tell me no if you don’t so I can go spend time doing something better

---

Right, the surgeon at the BC Cancer Agency in January, told her she was not a candidate for surgery. She wasn't able to talk to a Canadian oncologist (i.e. a second opinion) until months later

Meanwhile a foreign oncologist confirmed that HIPEC was best chance of success and so she had the surgery done in America by paying for it out of pocket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

Right, the surgeon at the BC Cancer Agency in January, told her she was not a candidate for surgery. She wasn't able to talk to an oncologist until months later

---

Correct. You get that the oncologist isn’t the surgeons boss right?

Two surgeons disagreed on what treatment she was a candidate for.

Now show us how that proves that this treatment is one of those “most advanced/expensive treatments only available in the US” and/or that she was denied the HIPEC in Canada because of its cost

You're being willfully obtuse. With stage four cancer time is crucial. Some health care systems ration based on ability to pay and some health care system ration based on time. In a race against time, the fact that she had to seek out a second opinion and get the procedure done in a foreign country speaks to both cost and availability of advanced treatment

You’re using a sad story that exposes real flaws in access to medical oncology care of a single patient to back up your claim that the best care is often denied to a patient in a universal health care system because of its cost.

You’re using a N of 1 story, reported in the media, not understanding/getting confused by the details, stretching that out to support your wide ranging claim that appears to now be based solely on feelings, and then calling me obtuse for criticizing your inability to back up your statements with hard facts.

Yes - she should be able to see an oncologist sooner than she did. Can’t defend that - and that is a system cost (not having enough oncologists) that is a clear failing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donutlynx

Can't be real? I mean... tell me you're a complete clown Elom, without telling me you're a complete clown.

---

We have (had?)a whole thread dedicated to determining whether Elmo is a complete clown. It was established some time ago that the answer is a definitive yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

You’re using a sad story that exposes flaws in access to oncology care of a single patient to back up your claim that the best care is often denied in a universal health care system because of its cost.

You’re using a N of 1 story, reported in the media, not understanding/getting confused by the details, stretching that out to support your wide ranging claim that appears to now be based solely on feelings, and then calling me obtuse for criticizing your inability to back up your statements with hard facts.

---

lol, literally said you wanted an example, I provided an example:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

Can you provide examples please

---

And this is the correct takeaway from the example:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

Yes - she should be able to see an oncologist sooner than she did. Can’t defend that - and that is a system cost (not having enough oncologists) that is a clear failing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

lol,, you wanted an example, I provided an example:

---

Yeah that is 100% on me for saying “examples” (you provided one but either didn’t read it or couldn’t understand it) instead of asking for factual proof. My bad.

In my defense I did say “examples” - but I retract that request for the sake of anyone still reading this thread.

I'm going to go ahead and post this again in case anyone actually wants to know why we pay so much much more for healthcare than the rest of the developed world and what we get and do not get for that money (spoiler: it's complicated).

https://peterattiamd.com/saumsutaria/

https://youtu.be/OtxH[emoji640][emoji637][emoji640]tGkA?si=VVa[emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji637]]]gA-kh[emoji639][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]O_E[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]O

Should’ve put this great song in this thread earlier


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

.Attachment 506966

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

Yeah that is 100% on me for saying “examples” (you provided one but either didn’t read it or couldn’t understand it) instead of asking for factual proof. My bad.

In my defense I did say “examples” - but I retract that request for the sake of anyone still reading this thread.

---

I mean, despite all your thunting you still came to the same conclusion as me:

"Yes - she should be able to see an oncologist sooner than she did. Can’t defend that - and that is a system cost (not having enough oncologists) that is a clear failing."

So what's your point again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Core Shot

Bullshit

https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-...areers-1735995

Although it’s sad that Derm outranks gas passers.

---

US News says Anesthesiologist was highest paying healthcare job for 2023

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

I mean, despite all your thunting you still came to the same conclusion as me:

---

Your conclusions:

“A socialized system will declare advanced treatment not cost effective and phase it out

A lot insurance claim denials are for the most advanced most expensive treatment options that might not even be available at any cost in other countries. “

——

^At no point did I come to these conclusions^

And your anecdotal story - that I had to explain to you - did not support those conclusions.

Those are my points. Vibes if you can’t wrap your head around them.

You may yet be able to back up your statements - but that global news story didn’t come close.

Now you're being even more pedantic. Nor did you "explain" anything. The Canadian surgeon told her she was not a candidate for surgery. In other words the advanced treatment that saved her life wasn't available to her in Canada

If you go to the doctor and have blood work and routine checkups every three months like I do, type II diabetic, that’s 4 office visits, I’d say on average 250 a piece = $1000, blood work 500 x 4 from fuckers at quest diagnostics, that’s $3000 usd, of preventive.

I pay $500 a month for my uhc plan.

So that leaves $3000 for the actual risk premium,. 250 approx a month.

Now first of all, your car insurance does not cover oil changes and tires it’s all risk premium. Why should it? So there needs to be a distinction between routine “maintenance” / healthcare, vs health insurance.

So, ask yourself, how much term life insurance would I get for 250 a month? You would not get 1mm, or two million, and you’re more likely to use the health insurance than have your wife hit the lotto on your 20 yr term. The limited term isn’t even being considered in the pricing, but it don’t help.

Lets not forget to mention the uninsured that go out enroll the month after they get cancer. You pay now.


Yes, the guy sold his soul to the devil, but this whole, wish he were dead, is out of control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

Now you're being even more pedantic. Nor did you "explain" anything.

---

Glad I could clarify things for you.

It’s ok to post your feelings and suspicions - just don’t market them like facts.

It's a pretty uncontroversial fact that one of the differences between the US healthcare system and most socialized healthcare systems is that the latter features a lot more rationing. Are you disputing that fact?

We're really talking about more stringent versus less stringent cost-benefit analysis. That's the point of what is just one of many examples:

“There’s a lot of promises I’m hearing. But, you know, we need boots-on-the-ground action right now. What can you do to shorten these wait times? How can you prioritize cases so that people with aggressive stage four cancer get seen by someone and when they do get seen, they get offered treatment and not MAID like I was the first time?”

MAID stands for medical assistance in dying

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cono Este

blood work 500 x 4 from fuckers at quest diagnostics

---

you're doing that wrong walkinlab.com

Quest is actually fine, so is Labcorp, they're not the problem

This thread was way cooler before MV started deepthroating the boot he used to just lick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conundrum

Counterpoint. And I'm not saying I believe the following but have thought about what I'm about to say. And I have a great amount of respect for docs and know some great people who are docs. I should probably ask them instead of you knuckleheads.

When is the last time you've heard a doc or hospital say "This is what you need, I'm trained in, but I'm just not going to do it"? I've heard plenty of "Sorry, your insurance company won't approve this procedure so we can't do it". Seems like saying we can do it but won't unless we get paid. Pharmaco..."We have a drug proven to be of major benefit in treating your condition but you can't have it until your insurance says so"...pay me or die bitches. Insurance companies don't administer care. Docs and hospitals do. Maybe they could just administer the care and then have their bloated hospital administration sue the insurance company for the money. If they provided life saving measures, seems like it would play well publically and the powers that be would have to side with the hospitals.

They all want paid but I'm not sure who is pulling the biggest string.

I'm with Otzi. Blow the whole thing up and start over. It needs to happen. And not replaced by the "concepts" being floated right now.

---

I haven't spent years paying doctors and hospitals monthly premiums to guarantee they pay for my health treatments. If they do something to pay for or reduce my costs, it's charitable but we had no prior agreement. If an insurance company breaks it's agreement with me because they bet wrong and now don't want to pay up for my treatment... Fuck them. I'm ok with taking a proverbial ballpin hammer to the deadbeat denying/delaying my coverage.


Again, my bigger issue is with insurance companies automatically denying/delaying care as a matter of policy initially and only providing coverage upon appeal, if at all. It's theft, and what they are stealing is health/life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

It's a pretty uncontroversial fact that one of the differences between the US healthcare system and most socialized healthcare systems is that the latter features a lot more rationing. Are you disputing that fact?

We're really talking about more stringent versus less stringent cost-benefit analysis. That's the point of what is just one of many examples:

“There’s a lot of promises I’m hearing. But, you know, we need boots-on-the-ground action right now. What can you do to shorten these wait times? How can you prioritize cases so that people with aggressive stage four cancer get seen by someone and when they do get seen, they get offered treatment and not MAID like I was the first time?”

MAID stands for medical assistance in dying

---

You read a news article and now imagine that the surgeon who saw this patient (in a timely manner) thought to themselves “this surgery is appropriate and medically indicated in this patient - but I’m going to tell them they are not a candidate for it so that the system can save that money - that’s my decision”

And the on the flip side you somehow don’t think that what UHC is doing is in any way shape or form rationing care - instead you imagine they are only denying claims asking for special, expensive treatments that don’t even exist in socialized health care systems?

“The US is offering treatments not available in socialized systems! Proves socialized medicine effectively rations care!

Oh those treatments not available in socialized systems? Yeah UHC denies those claims. “

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by concretejungle

This thread was way cooler before MV started deepthroating the boot he used to just lick.

---

I didn't say anything until we learned about the killer's politics. His politics are certainly not populist-coded and unless you're all in on Unabomber types then it's time to disavow him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

You read a news article and now imagine that the surgeon who saw this patient (in a timely manner) thought to themselves “this surgery is appropriate and medically indicated in this patient - but I’m going to tell them they are not a candidate for it so that the system can save that money - that’s my decision”

And the on the flip side you somehow don’t think that what UHC is doing is in any way shape or form rationing care - instead you imagine they are only denying claims asking for special, expensive treatments that don’t even exist in socialized health care systems?

---

It's not like wait times in Canada are an isolated incident. And I don't know what the surgeon thought, neither do you. The point is she couldn't get care because the surgeon said no and she couldn't see an oncologist for months. She was offered medical assistance in dying, though.

And on the flip side WRT UFC that's why I called for more transparency when it comes to claim denials. I never said UHC wasn't rationing care, I said UHC rationed based on ability to pay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

I didn't say anything until we learned about the killer's politics. His politics are certainly not populist-coded and unless you're all in on Unabomber types then it's time to disavow him






I don't know what the surgeon thought and neither do you.

---

So you have zero idea if it was a financially motivated decision to ration care to save the system money. But you went there.

Zero? The article plainly stated, "HIPEC is considered the standard for Ducluzeau’s cancer when possible but a letter from the BC Cancer Agency does not agree with this assessment"

Why do you think the BC Cancer Agency does not agree with performing HIPEC procedures? According to the article HIPEC is the standard in America but not Canada. Might that be an example of socialized system declaring advanced treatment not cost effective and phasing it out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by concretejungle

This thread was way cooler before MV started deepthroating the boot he used to just lick.

---

came to say exactly this.

I think the extreme overhead caused by the middlemen factor in healthcare, and the market specific cost gouging by pharma, is why US healthcare costs are so high. It isn't payments to doctors, nurses and techs.

Most hospitals don't have shareholders because most are "non-profit." But I've come to learn that non-profit is a nebulous term in healthcare where for-profits can own non-profits and vice versa.

Insurance companies spend much of their costs trying to figure out how to charge more and pay less, including denials/lobbying/legal.

That forces hospitals and medical practices to spend a huge portion of their costs making sure they can get the insurance companies to pay including documentation/coding/compliance/billers/legal.

You basically cannot be a standalone medical practioner anymore as a doc, np, rn, pt, whatever unless you are cash only. You have to outsource your insurance/billing/appeals because the insurance companies have made it such a complex racket that it just gobbles time and resources.

Insurance companies don't care that they introduce massive inefficiencies into the system as long as by doing so, they make a profit.

That's where there is a MASSIVE burn. I bet between the sand that insurance company dumps in the healthcare gearbox and the gouging by pharma/pbm, that is probably 1/3 of every healthcare dollar spent in the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

Maybe fewer doctors, maybe not. The AMA works hard to reduce the supply of doctors and also to limit the type of work nurses, PAs, and NPs can do.

---

I don't think you are gonna find many other countries where RNs do more than in the US.

Quote:

---

Anesthesiology ... Their job can actually mostly be done by nurse techs

---

What the fuck is a "nurse tech"?

Perhaps you meant CRNA, which is an anesthesia graduate degree prepared advanced practice nurse, typically fairly experienced in critical before their graduate program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

It's not like wait times in Canada are an isolated incident. And I don't know what the surgeon thought, neither do you. The point is she couldn't get care because the surgeon said no and she couldn't see an oncologist for months. She was offered medical assistance in dying, though

---

yeah we can get that up here too but I often wonder if less Amercians would try to kill themselves/ each other if life wasnt so desperate ?