High-profile killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in New York

[Red in STL]

You pay more than 200 a month in taxes to get " free" healthcare. The key is what @Red in STL said that his company pays much more for it. Meaning that if you don't have a job you are or fecked without insurance or you pay much more than 200 a month for a private insurance that covers you way less. Also, lets not go to pre existing conditions that is not a problem in public health care countries

US works great when everything goes great but might get ultra shitty when things dont go as great because it has no safety net

And no safety net is the way Americans seem to want it because anything related to what is deemed to be a Government handout is bad, not just healthcare

The pre-exising condition thing is not really relevant at present because of the ACA, but if that gets repealed then the average Joe is gonna be seriously fecked

The number of people who don't seem to know that the ACA and Obamacare are the same thing is mind-boggling, I've seen numerous examples of people praising their ACA coverage/cost whilst railing against how evil Obamacare is!

 

[FortunaUtd]

Is it though?

I mean, if DRUGS has a median cost of 10k per capita, then insurers will set the price at 11K and make a profit of 1k per customer. But if they then deny 25% of all claims, they've made a median profit of 3.5k.

Whereas, if DRUGS have a median cost of 50k per capita, the insurer can set the price at 51k. But then make a median profit of 13.5k when they deny 25% of all claims.

I really hope that made sense to you when you typed it...

Sure did. Which part are you struggling with?

I'm going to be honest, I'm also struggling.
Pardon me while I try to think it through. I think the stumbling block in my understanding is the sentence "insurers will set the price" following the notion of drug prices. Do you mean, higher drug prices will mean the opportunity of higher prices of premium payments for insurance meant to cover drugs, and then the denial of claims leads to higher profit for the insurance?
That way it does make sense doesn't it @Pogue Mahone

 

[4bars]

And no safety net is the way Americans seem to want it because anything related to what is deemed to be a Government handout is bad, not just healthcare

The pre-exising condition thing is not really relevant at present because of the ACA, but if that gets repealed then the average Joe is gonna be seriously fecked

The number of people who don't seem to know that the ACA and Obamacare are the same thing is mind-boggling, I've seen numerous examples of people praising their ACA coverage/cost whilst railing against how evil Obamacare is!

Yes, I have seen these videos interviewing people saying to repeal Obamacare but they love ACA. Utterly pathetic how political alignment can make you go against what you really like

 

[Cloud7]

This is exactly what they deserve for being a bootlicking rat. These are the people they sided with.

 

[B20]

I'm going to be honest, I'm also struggling.
Pardon me while I try to think it through. I think the stumbling block in my understanding is the sentence "insurers will set the price" following the notion of drug prices. Do you mean, higher drug prices will mean the opportunity of higher prices of premium payments for insurance meant to cover drugs, and then the denial of claims leads to higher profit for the insurance?
That way it does make sense doesn't it @Pogue Mahone

Well yes.

 

[Red in STL]

Yes, I have seen these videos interviewing people saying to repeal Obamacare but they love ACA. Utterly pathetic how political alignment can make you go against what you really like

It's not always political alignment, some people actually have no idea they are both one and the same

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

This is exactly what they deserve for being a bootlicking rat. These are the people they sided with.

I like this I'm going to use it on a few of my coworkers today.

 

[JPRouve]

I'm going to be honest, I'm also struggling.
Pardon me while I try to think it through. I think the stumbling block in my understanding is the sentence "insurers will set the price" following the notion of drug prices. Do you mean, higher drug prices will mean the opportunity of higher prices of premium payments for insurance meant to cover drugs, and then the denial of claims leads to higher profit for the insurance?
That way it does make sense doesn't it @Pogue Mahone

It's not just the denial of claims, keep in mind that the vast majority of people don't actually make claims and won't but high prices will incentives everyone to pay expensive premiums because the risk of expensive bills is real. The other thing is that insurers are also often providers or part of pharmacentical consortiums, Unitedhealth group being an example.

An example of that logic is with insurances or warranties for things like smartphones, the more expensive they have become the better it has been for companies that offer extendable warranties or insurances because people are more likely to be willing to pay.

 

[Red in STL]

I like this I'm going to use it on a few of my coworkers today.

There are rewards on offer for your coworkers??

 

[4bars]

It's not always political alignment, some people actually have no idea they are both one and the same

Sure, you might not know and be neutral about it because you care little. But the ones that they want ACA but repeal Obamacare takes the cake

 

[Bert_]

You pay more than 200 a month in taxes to get " free" healthcare. The key is what @Red in STL said that his company pays much more for it. Meaning that if you don't have a job you are or fecked without insurance or you pay much more than 200 a month for a private insurance that covers you way less. Also, lets not go to pre existing conditions that is not a problem in public health care countries

US works great when everything goes great but might get ultra shitty when things dont go as great because it has no safety net

Yeah, it's paid for by tax but still works out cheaper than but as you say, it's universal and not dependent on your employment.

It also gets you much better bang for buck wholistically. The NHS pays a hell of a lot less for pharmaceuticals due to sheer purchasing power.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Yeah, it's paid for by tax but still works out cheaper than but as you say, it's universal and not dependent on your employment.

It also gets you much better bang for buck wholistically. The NHS pays a hell of a lot less for pharmaceuticals due to sheer purchasing power.

There is a common argument among some in the US that US citizens "subsidize" drugs for countries with public insurance systems because the high prices Americans pay are necessary for pharma companies because big pharma can't charge more for drugs in countries with public options and those high prices/profits are necessary for R+D to take place.

 

[Man of Leisure]

While our system isn't ideal, there seems to be some misinformation on here. The US does offer healthcare for old (Medicare) and lower income (Medicaid).

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

While not ideal, there seems to be some misinformation on here. The US does offer healthcare for old (Medicare) and lower income (Medicaid).

There is a big dead zone though where people make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, employers either don't offer insurance for those jobs or the insurance still requires a big monthly financial commitment and they don't really make enough money to pay for completely private medical insurance without some severe trade offs.

 

[Semper Fudge]

There is a big dead zone though where people make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, employers either don't offer insurance for those jobs or the insurance still requires a big monthly financial commitment and they don't really make enough money to pay for completely private medical insurance without some severe trade offs.

Quite literally.

 

[VorZakone]

“The visceral response from people across the country who feel cheated, ripped off, and threatened by the vile practices of their insurance companies should be a warning to everyone in the healthcare system,” Warren said, pointing to the outcrying of support from people online in support of Luigi Mangione, who is a suspect in the killing.

 

[4bars]

While our system isn't ideal, there seems to be some misinformation on here. The US does offer healthcare for old (Medicare) and lower income (Medicaid).

I am personally aware of that. But i am not sure about the extend of the service. Do medicare and medicaid covers everything that a developed country covers? Meaning. Would cover all thr cancer treatment with all the drugs and staying weeks in a hospital in room isolated because you are in remission through leukemia? Does it cover phisio recovery? Because it does, i dont understand documentaries where people lives in utter poverty to pay for meds. Would not they be qualifoed as low income if they live in tents?

 

[4bars]

There is a common argument among some in the US that US citizens "subsidize" drugs for countries with public insurance systems because the high prices Americans pay are necessary for pharma companies because big pharma can't charge more for drugs in countries with public options and those high prices/profits are necessary for R+D to take place.

I heard about that argument and then i check the billions that they make and i think they could go without less benefits. IMO is at best a bad partial excuse

Also, there is the common argument that if it would not mean having profits (public services) they will be focus in curing the disease instead on the symptoms

 

[Lemoor]

There is a common argument among some in the US that US citizens "subsidize" drugs for countries with public insurance systems because the high prices Americans pay are necessary for pharma companies because big pharma can't charge more for drugs in countries with public options and those high prices/profits are necessary for R+D to take place.

I wish that for every 10 times I've seen this line of reasoning, I'd see a good justification once.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I heard about that argument and then i check the billions that they make and i think they could go without less benefits. IMO is at best a bad partial excuse

Also, there is the common argument that if it would not mean having profits (public services) they will be focus in curing the disease instead on the symptoms

The “big pharma could cure diseases but chooses not to” conspiracy theory is right up there with flat earth in the pantheon of tin foil hatted nonsense. Even more so recently now they’re making progress in developing treatments that will actually cure chronic diseases, for the first time ever, with cell and gene therapies.

The “US subsidising the rest of the world” is nowhere near as far-fetched. The profit margins in America dwarf the rest of the world. So without that cash cow the rest of the world probably would have to make up the difference. Although why any Americans would see this as a justification for continuing to pay over the odds is a mystery to me.

 

[JPRouve]

I wish that for every 10 times I've seen this line of reasoning, I'd see a good justification once.

There isn't one, it's an industry that makes comically large profits on a yearly basis.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

There is a common argument among some in the US that US citizens "subsidize" drugs for countries with public insurance systems because the high prices Americans pay are necessary for pharma companies because big pharma can't charge more for drugs in countries with public options and those high prices/profits are necessary for R+D to take place.

This is undoubtedly true. It depends on portfolio but most pharma companies make 65-90% of their revenue in the US.

I heard about that argument and then i check the billions that they make and i think they could go without less benefits. IMO is at best a bad partial excuse

Also, there is the common argument that if it would not mean having profits (public services) they will be focus in curing the disease instead on the symptoms

The notion that pharma could cure disease but chooses not to is just silly. As time goes on and the more straightforward diseases get cured, it stands to reason that it will become more challenging to find cures.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I wish that for every 10 times I've seen this line of reasoning, I'd see a good justification once.

There isn't one, it's an industry that makes comically large profits on a yearly basis.

The justification is that it costs about $2-3 billion dollars to bring a drug to market. If pharma companies aren't allowed to make profits from the successful drugs the incentive to develop new medicines goes kaput. Here's a solid piece explaining the potential implications:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/07/reverse-voxsplaining-brand-name-drugs/

Pharma companies of course do a lot of terrible things and should be limited in terms of their capacity to lobby politicians, to market to consumers, and to engage in legal / patent shenanigans to block generic & biosimilar competition. But at the same time, they are providing a real and tangible benefit to humanity and a major reason why they have had to raise prices is the impact private insurance has had on the US healthcare landscape.

 

[Lemoor]

The justification is that it costs about $2-3 billion dollars to bring a drug to market. If pharma companies aren't allowed to make profits from the successful drugs the incentive to develop new medicines goes kaput. Here's a solid piece explaining the potential implications:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/07/reverse-voxsplaining-brand-name-drugs/

I know and this would be relevant if that problem was just limited to new drugs just brought to the market.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I know and this would be relevant if that problem was just limited to new drugs just brought to the market.

It is. Drugs get patent protection for a finite period of time. After which anyone can manufacture generic versions which are cheap as chips. In a functional healthcare system patients are all switched to generics as soon as possible and the price of their treatments falls of a cliff.

I’m not exactly sure why this doesn’t happen in the US but if they could make it happen they would immediately massively reduce drugs spend.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I know and this would be relevant if that problem was just limited to new drugs just brought to the market.

I mean of course it's relevant - if you want innovative therapies addressing unmet needs then it's inherently a risky process from an R&D perspective?

That said, the FDA can and should continue to do more to streamline the biosimilar approval process. Pharma companies also need to be limited in terms of their legal shenanigans / patent games (Abbvie's nonsense with Humira being the chief example).

It is. Drugs get patent protection for a finite period of time. After which anyone can manufacture generic versions which are cheap as chips. In a functional healthcare system patients are all switched to generics as soon as possible and the price of their treatments falls of a cliff.

I’m not exactly sure why this doesn’t happen in the US but if they could make it happen they would immediately massively reduce drugs spend.

It absolutely happens in the US; the issue is that most of the expensive medicines these days are biologics (aka not a chemical compound but instead a protein) - so the cost to produce is vastly higher. The generic equivalent of a biologic is called a biosimilar and it's an important distinction.

Personally I'd have no qualms about taking a generic drug synthesized just about anywhere; I'd have more reservations about accepting a biosimilar that hasn't been properly evaluated against the originator. In so-called "regulated" markets, a biosimilar can't be made available unless it's shown in head to head trials to be equivalent to the originator. In markets like India and China, biosimilars can be launched based solely on placebo trials which is far more dubious.

 

[Lemoor]

It is. Drugs get patent protection for a finite period of time. After which anyone can manufacture generic versions which are cheap as chips. In a functional healthcare system patients are all switched to generics as soon as possible and the price of their treatments falls of a cliff.

I’m not exactly sure why this doesn’t happen in the US but if they could make it happen they would immediately massively reduce drugs spend.

I'm confused. We're talking about US here, I thought? If that doesn't happen in US for older drugs, then the problem isn't limited to new drugs?

I mean of course it's relevant - if you want innovative therapies addressing unmet needs then it's inherently a risky process from an R&D perspective?

Yes it is, but it still doesn't explain any meaningful part of the insane difference in total health expenditure, nor does it explain the insane price differences in anything that is not an "innovative therapy". And all of that while having worse health outcomes than most OECD countries. You could remove the entire, global pharmaceutical R&D budget from US exdpenditure per capita and you would barely see a difference on those comparisons.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Yes it is, but it still doesn't explain any meaningful part of the insane difference in total health expenditure, nor does it explain the insane price differences in anything that is not an "innovative therapy". And all of that while having worse health outcomes than most OECD countries. You could remove the entire, global pharmaceutical R&D budget from US exdpenditure per capita and you would barely see a difference on those comparisons.

Ah I see - apologies; I think we are on the same page here in terms of where blame should be apportioned. Misunderstood the initial post of yours that I'd quoted.

 

[reelworld]

I mean of course it's relevant - if you want innovative therapies addressing unmet needs then it's inherently a risky process from an R&D perspective?

That said, the FDA can and should continue to do more to streamline the biosimilar approval process. Pharma companies also need to be limited in terms of their legal shenanigans / patent games (Abbvie's nonsense with Humira being the chief example).


It absolutely happens in the US; the issue is that most of the expensive medicines these days are biologics (aka not a chemical compound but instead a protein) - so the cost to produce is vastly higher. The generic equivalent of a biologic is called a biosimilar and it's an important distinction.

Personally I'd have no qualms about taking a generic drug synthesized just about anywhere; I'd have more reservations about accepting a biosimilar that hasn't been properly evaluated against the originator. In so-called "regulated" markets, a biosimilar can't be made available unless it's shown in head to head trials to be equivalent to the originator. In markets like India and China, biosimilars can be launched based solely on placebo trials which is far more dubious.

I think insulin is a prime example of patent shenanigans from these pharma companies.
The inventor gave the patent away almost for nothing for altruistic purpose and they just find a way to get around that by adding "improvement"

 

[berbatrick]

The “big pharma could cure diseases but chooses not to” conspiracy theory is right up there with flat earth in the pantheon of tin foil hatted nonsense. Even more so recently now they’re making progress in developing treatments that will actually cure chronic diseases, for the first time ever, with cell and gene therapies.

Just for a counterpoint, from a pretty senior ivy league prof, who spent about 30 seconds on this in a 30 minute lecture, and who works in therapy development himself. (This was a week ago, so imperfect memory)

"Antibiotic resistance is a problem. Developing a new frontline antibiotic will cost hundreds of millions or billions. Most existing infections can be dealt with by existing antibiotics. After spending their billions, the company will only be able to sell this to hospitals who need something for patients deteriorating while not responding to existing treatment. This stuff's going to be bought in small amounts and sit on the shelf for weeks. It's not profitable."

 

[Pscholes18]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/leaked-video-shows-insurance-ceo-223949249.html

 

[berbatrick]

NY Times Doesn’t Want You to See Mangione’s Face​

​

Internal New York Times messages about its coverage of alleged gunman Luigi Mangione have been leaked to me and the contents are revealing. On Tuesday, management said “the news value and public service of showing his face is diminishing,” instructing staff to “dial back” its use of such photos. It also directed that Luigi’s “manifesto” not be published in the paper.

The directive was heeded. If you visit Times’ front-page story today on the shooter, it features Mangione’s back as he was being marched to his arraignment in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Another Times story today on Mangione’s notebook features a photo of a generic police-tape barricade.

https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/ny-times-doesnt-want-you-to-see-mangiones

 

[dumbo]

I don't agree with threatening people and putting out potential hits on them. And for the same reason I don't agree with the existence of exploitative for profits and those at the heads of these companies.

Thus the best, fairest and most moral solution is that we should remove the wanted posters at the same time as we remove these people from these positions. Doing one without the other gets us nowhere, in my opinion. So let's get to it.

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

I don't agree with threatening people and putting out potential hits on them. And for the same reason I don't agree with the existence of exploitative for profits and those at the heads of these companies.

Thus the best, fairest and most moral solution is that we should remove the wanted posters at the same time as we remove these people from these positions. Doing one without the other gets us nowhere, in my opinion. So let's get to it.

Removing them for the positions they hold won't change anything though will it?

 

[NotThatSoph]

Just for a counterpoint, from a pretty senior ivy league prof, who spent about 30 seconds on this in a 30 minute lecture, and who works in therapy development himself. (This was a week ago, so imperfect memory)

"Antibiotic resistance is a problem. Developing a new frontline antibiotic will cost hundreds of millions or billions. Most existing infections can be dealt with by existing antibiotics. After spending their billions, the company will only be able to sell this to hospitals who need something for patients deteriorating while not responding to existing treatment. This stuff's going to be bought in small amounts and sit on the shelf for weeks. It's not profitable."

The fact that private pharma actively don't want to cure diseases is like the first corollary you get from a free market analysis. That's the whole point of patents and intellectual property. There's a lot of money in insulin, no money in curing diabetes.

This is the whole logic of the current system, which even with this in mind is fecked of course, where governments invest in unprofitable research for cures while private pharma researches the profitable stuff. I don't know why someone would deny what private pharma people readily accept.

 

[Cloud7]

I don't agree with threatening people and putting out potential hits on them. And for the same reason I don't agree with the existence of exploitative for profits and those at the heads of these companies.

Thus the best, fairest and most moral solution is that we should remove the wanted posters at the same time as we remove these people from these positions. Doing one without the other gets us nowhere, in my opinion. So let's get to it.

I know you're probably being sarcastic there, but I honestly think this is a great idea. Even if nothing actually comes of it, let the corpo-rats feel some fear for once in their life

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

Today I have learnt that Americans through their health care costs subsidise drugs R&D and innovative treatments for the rest of the world. Are American Pharma companies and their CEOs Batman?

Also is it actually true?

 

[Precaution]

Today I have learnt that Americans through their health care costs subsidise drugs R&D and innovative treatments for the rest of the world. Are American Pharma companies and its CEOs Batman?

Also is it actually true?

Is that basically the NHS they didn't wanna because "socialism" but with extra steps and no actual beneficial value to the American people at all

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Just for a counterpoint, from a pretty senior ivy league prof, who spent about 30 seconds on this in a 30 minute lecture, and who works in therapy development himself. (This was a week ago, so imperfect memory)

"Antibiotic resistance is a problem. Developing a new frontline antibiotic will cost hundreds of millions or billions. Most existing infections can be dealt with by existing antibiotics. After spending their billions, the company will only be able to sell this to hospitals who need something for patients deteriorating while not responding to existing treatment. This stuff's going to be bought in small amounts and sit on the shelf for weeks. It's not profitable."

That’s not really a counterpoint. The conspiracy goes that it’s more profitable to put someone on drugs for life to try and control a chronic illness than it would be to somehow cure that illness with a short course of drugs (or single pill) This is, obviously, nonsense and doesn’t apply to bacterial illnesses, where there are no profitable long term treatments. If not treated, people die quickly.

The prof is right about antibiotics though. Even though pharma doesn’t profit from bacterial resistance, the incentives aren’t there to spend hundreds of millions developing drugs to treat resistant bugs that may only infect a very small number of people, then immediately get wiped out by an effective antibiotic. Hence there are initiatives afoot to try and create incentives for this sort of research. In the EU anyway.

 

[horsechoker]

Hearing his outfit is sold out in some places, thank god this took place about as far from Halloween as possible or we'd have to put up with with every shithead wearing that coat.