High-profile killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in New York

Would be funny if the conservatives ask for stricter gun laws if this happens again soon.
 
FrankDrebin said:
Would be funny if the conservatives ask for stricter gun laws if this happens again soon.
Click to expand...
If more CEOs get whacked then possibly, it was the Republicans who essentially brought the Mulford Act into effect once the Black Panthers started to exercise their right to the 2nd amendment.
 
dumbo said:


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.
Click to expand...


seems fair to me!!

I really hope the public outcry from all this can be harnessed into a well organised movement
 
Dr. StrangeHate said:
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?
Click to expand...
The US government funds research via tax revenues as do most governments, pharma companies also fund it, it's not funded by 'healthcare costs'

In recent years much of government funded research has been published as Open Access, which basically means anyone can see/use it, the OA status is usually a requirement of the funding body
 
JPRouve said:
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.
Click to expand...
Anyone know why Unitedhealth's denial % was so much greater than everyone else's? Presumably part of the reason must be to do with its premiums or its customer make up? Or people would just go elsewhere?
 
nickm said:
Anyone know why Unitedhealth's denial % was so much greater than everyone else's? Presumably part of the reason must be to do with its premiums or its customer make up? Or people would just go elsewhere?
Click to expand...
Greed.
 
nickm said:
Maybe. But that doesn't strike me as a sufficient answer by itself. Just interested in understanding the numbers. Glad I don't live under that system anyway.
Click to expand...
Been hesitant to jump in, but I wonder how much billing fraud plays into it as well (insurance companies catching hospitals or doctors trying to fraudulently bill the insurance company). I have had United Healthcare for 20 years and never really had a problem with them, they even covered my adult child's gender affirming care surgery. Seems like others have not had the same luck that my family has had.
 
nickm said:
Anyone know why Unitedhealth's denial % was so much greater than everyone else's? Presumably part of the reason must be to do with its premiums or its customer make up? Or people would just go elsewhere?
Click to expand...
People don't really have a choice - ~85% of people with commercial insurance get it through their employer. UHC invests a lot of time in selling employers on their coverage - for instance they have a partnership with Walmart, the largest employer in the US.

UHC also has the most extensive prior authorization process that is a huge pain in the ass - this is deliberate to give them an excuse to deny claims for procedural or clerical reasons.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
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.
Click to expand...

TheMagicFoolBus said:
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.
Click to expand...


Sure, is not far fetched gouging prices to make billions of profits but not far fetched promoting and spending most of the resources to drugs that gives them the long run treatment so sustained benefits than a short treatment that would give them a short benfit

I am not saying that is pharma evilness that provoke that. Is investment - return capitalistic positioning that allocates resources where is forseen it will be more benefit

You can believe it or not but qualified as silly or a conspiracy I would counter with having the most naive mind that is out there. Like believing that greed doesn't exist in multibillion companies
 
images
 
Tarrou said:
seems fair to me!!

I really hope the public outcry from all this can be harnessed into a well organised movement
Click to expand...
Not happening anytime soon. At most you'll get a few adventurist types putting attempts on some CEOs, hoopla in the news, Democrats being Democrats, and activist orgs composed of students and outcasts demanding workers unite without realizing the irony.
 
Normally there's a big concern for a pretty boy going to the big house, but I actually think this kid is going to be treated like a hero. He's also set to make a lot of money out of this if he isn't silenced and herded away out of sight for fear of becoming an inspiration to others.

Offing a defenceless, innocent man in such a cold, calculating way and coming out the other side a hero and martyr who many are rooting for and actively supporting is quite something. When was the last time a cold-blooded murderer was universally lauded like this?
 
4bars said:
Sure, is not far fetched gouging prices to make billions of profits but not far fetched promoting and spending most of the resources to drugs that gives them the long run treatment so sustained benefits than a short treatment that would give them a short benfit

I am not saying that is pharma evilness that provoke that. Is investment - return capitalistic positioning that allocates resources where is forseen it will be more benefit

You can believe it or not but qualified as silly or a conspiracy I would counter with having the most naive mind that is out there. Like believing that greed doesn't exist in multibillion companies
Click to expand...
If you think that pharma companies aren't doing everything possible to develop curative treatments, you're just being silly.

No pharma company has ever said "this drug works too fast and therefore we won't invest in it". That's just nonsensical. Obviously when it comes to identifying the target patient population strategic decisions will be made and there is always the balance between efficient treatment & tolerability of side effects - but no one is diluting their medications to sell an extra dose; that's ridiculous.
 
4bars said:
Sure, is not far fetched gouging prices to make billions of profits but not far fetched promoting and spending most of the resources to drugs that gives them the long run treatment so sustained benefits than a short treatment that would give them a short benfit

I am not saying that is pharma evilness that provoke that. Is investment - return capitalistic positioning that allocates resources where is forseen it will be more benefit

You can believe it or not but qualified as silly or a conspiracy I would counter with having the most naive mind that is out there. Like believing that greed doesn't exist in multibillion companies
Click to expand...
I mean, what do people want here? Vaccines have eliminated scores of dreadful, crippling diseases. Hosts of cancers have effectively been cured. AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis - FFS even the largely self inflicted disease of obesity - are fully treatable. Millions of people are alive who would otherwise have been dead, thanks to this "capitalistic positioning" (ie expensive cutting edge research that misses far more often than it hits). What more do you want?
 
Last edited:
Fortitude said:
Normally there's a big concern for a pretty boy going to the big house, but I actually think this kid is going to be treated like a hero. He's also set to make a lot of money out of this if he isn't silenced and herded away out of sight for fear of becoming an inspiration to others.

Offing a defenceless, innocent man in such a cold, calculating way and coming out the other side a hero and martyr who many are rooting for and actively supporting is quite something. When was the last time a cold-blooded murderer was universally lauded like this?
Click to expand...
When Slim Charles killed Cheese.
 
Fortitude said:
Normally there's a big concern for a pretty boy going to the big house, but I actually think this kid is going to be treated like a hero. He's also set to make a lot of money out of this if he isn't silenced and herded away out of sight for fear of becoming an inspiration to others.

Offing a defenceless, innocent man in such a cold, calculating way and coming out the other side a hero and martyr who many are rooting for and actively supporting is quite something. When was the last time a cold-blooded murderer was universally lauded like this?
Click to expand...

Isn’t there some rule about not being able to make money off the back of committing crimes? As in, he either wouldn’t be allowed to write an autobiography, or, he’d be allowed to write it but not to profit from it.

I may be getting US and UK law confused, but I thought it was quite strictly covered.
 
4bars said:
Sure, is not far fetched gouging prices to make billions of profits but not far fetched promoting and spending most of the resources to drugs that gives them the long run treatment so sustained benefits than a short treatment that would give them a short benfit

I am not saying that is pharma evilness that provoke that. Is investment - return capitalistic positioning that allocates resources where is forseen it will be more benefit

You can believe it or not but qualified as silly or a conspiracy I would counter with having the most naive mind that is out there. Like believing that greed doesn't exist in multibillion companies
Click to expand...

Its a daft position. No other way to put it.

Public companies exist primarily to produce returns to shareholders. Curing a disease does that in spades. Why would they choose to pass?

Novo Nordisk became the EUs biggest company off the back of being just one of a few companies to crack the weight loss drug semaglitude. Should somebody create a cure for cancer they would be the biggest company that ever existed.
 
11101 said:
Its a daft position. No other way to put it.

Public companies exist primarily to produce returns to shareholders. Curing a disease does that in spades. Why would they choose to pass?

Novo Nordisk became the EUs biggest company off the back of being just one of a few companies to crack the weight loss drug semaglitude. Should somebody create a cure for cancer they would be the biggest company that ever existed.
Click to expand...
Amen
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
If you think that pharma companies aren't doing everything possible to develop curative treatments, you're just being silly.

No pharma company has ever said "this drug works too fast and therefore we won't invest in it". That's just nonsensical. Obviously when it comes to identifying the target patient population strategic decisions will be made and there is always the balance between efficient treatment & tolerability of side effects - but no one is diluting their medications to sell an extra dose; that's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

oversimplifying what I am saying. is not as much as a conscious exercise but what market drives this companies. And obviously "diluting" is not what I am saying either

nickm said:
I mean, what do people want here? Vaccines have eliminated scores of dreadful, crippling diseases. Hosts of cancers have effectively been cured. AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis - FFS even the largely self inflicted disease of obesity - are fully treatable. Millions of people are alive who would otherwise have been dead, thanks to this "capitalistic positioning" (ie expensive cutting edge research that misses far more often than it hits). What more do you want?
Click to expand...

The FFS is quite a thing when you are putting vaccines that were discovered (googling of course) in1925 for tuberculosis, hepatitis 1965, AIDS is not cured at all (besides I believe 5 cases worldwide?) and is a chronicle and heavily medicated controlled disease. Lots of vaccines exist pre this big capitalistic monster that are pharmaceutical companies. I am not criticizing medicine here

11101 said:
Its a daft position. No other way to put it.

Public companies exist primarily to produce returns to shareholders. Curing a disease does that in spades. Why would they choose to pass?

Novo Nordisk became the EUs biggest company off the back of being just one of a few companies to crack the weight loss drug semaglitude. Should somebody create a cure for cancer they would be the biggest company that ever existed.
Click to expand...

Sure. Nothing is black and white. The answer is in the middle and sure pharmaceutical cure diseases but their interest lies to maximize profits and that is long term care. Correct me if I am wrong but any weight loss drug is not a vaccine but a long term treatment (score!) and when you stop, you probably gain partial or total weight and start again (double score!). So I don't know how your example doesn't help my "daft position"

And so far, he biggest pharmaceutical company in the world is the one that makes you cock hard, unsurprisingly (and yes, I am being facetious here)

Again, to all three that I am answering. No, I don't say is EVIL BIG PHARMA and no, I am not saying that they don't cure or completely block drugs that might cure a disease. Just that they are more driven and push their R+D to another direction. Cures will steal popping here and there, but if a pharmaceutical company specialized in a chronicle solution and has an edge on a particular disease, they will not have incentive to cure it completely when they are already the experts. The cure will only come when another pharmaceutical company tries to undercut them with a shorter term, less secondary effects (and is difficult when you are competing with the experts on that area so might not want to spend their resources there or elsewhere) or when their patent expires and needs to improve its drugs to make another patent till at some point it will shorten the range enough.

Not criticizing medicine, not criticizing researchers, I am criticizing capitalism
 
4bars said:
oversimplifying what I am saying. is not as much as a conscious exercise but what market drives this companies. And obviously "diluting" is not what I am saying either



The FFS is quite a thing when you are putting vaccines that were discovered (googling of course) in1925 for tuberculosis, hepatitis 1965, AIDS is not cured at all (besides I believe 5 cases worldwide?) and is a chronicle and heavily medicated controlled disease. Lots of vaccines exist pre this big capitalistic monster that are pharmaceutical companies. I am not criticizing medicine here



Sure. Nothing is black and white. The answer is in the middle and sure pharmaceutical cure diseases but their interest lies to maximize profits and that is long term care. Correct me if I am wrong but any weight loss drug is not a vaccine but a long term treatment (score!) and when you stop, you probably gain partial or total weight and start again (double score!). So I don't know how your example doesn't help my "daft position"

And so far, he biggest pharmaceutical company in the world is the one that makes you cock hard, unsurprisingly (and yes, I am being facetious here)

Again, to all three that I am answering. No, I don't say is EVIL BIG PHARMA and no, I am not saying that they don't cure or completely block drugs that might cure a disease. Just that they are more driven and push their R+D to another direction. Cures will steal popping here and there, but if a pharmaceutical company specialized in a chronicle solution and has an edge on a particular disease, they will not have incentive to cure it completely when they are already the experts. The cure will only come when another pharmaceutical company tries to undercut them with a shorter term, less secondary effects (and is difficult when you are competing with the experts on that area so might not want to spend their resources there or elsewhere) or when their patent expires and needs to improve its drugs to make another patent till at some point it will shorten the range enough.

Not criticizing medicine, not criticizing researchers, I am criticizing capitalism
Click to expand...
Speaking from extensive experience this is just incorrect. No one is making decisions on this basis. If that were the case there wouldn't be new oncology drugs.

Again there is plenty to criticize pharma companies for - all the bullshit patent games that they play, money wasted on marketing nonsense, all of the underhanded practices that limit competition, etc - but suggesting that they are focusing R&D on chronic treatments is simply incorrect.

It's also not really how R&D works - you can't just say "well they should focus more on curative treatments" as if investment will automatically lead to these types of breakthroughs. Curing diseases is incredibly hard - and you are downplaying the huge efforts that have moved the space in this direction (gene therapies, CAR-T, etc).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.