772
'Out of control': Cancer surgeon claims UnitedHealthcare questioned her mid-procedure
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
772 points (99.9% liked)
United States | News & Politics
2082 readers
2133 users here now
Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Medical insurance companies should be forced to also provide life insurance to the same customer.
Then they have incentive to keep their customers alive.
No, no, they should only be required to provide life insurance for deaths related to refused treatments, but the amount should be massive and punitive. Whoops, you died because we denied your treatment, your next of kin gets several times more than we could have hypothetically saved by denying the treatment.
You can't make it a massive punitive amount of it's general life insurance because everyone dies eventually. But you can if it's for deaths related to a denied treatment, and you can make it high enough that the financial incentive is always in favor of approving necessary treatments.
Idk if it's only for like 200k and the procedure costs more than that then they have an incentive to kill you
I think it's sick that you can put 250k into your body to heal and that doesn't increase the value of your body. Idk, makes life insurance that much more ghoulish.
In the current scenario, they have to pay nothing if they kill you. It's just pure savings. In the other, they have to pay $200k.
That's true but it's a business. Yes they would prefer to pay nothing but if the law passed they had to cover life insurance then they straight up have a number to beat. If it's gonna cost $200,001 to keep you alive then nope, denied.
Your logic is true, but what you're forgetting is that they already have a number to beat, and it's $0.
Technically the number is person's insurance premium over expected natural lifespan. But that number is still going to be lower than medical expenses. Might as well be $0.
And they currently just deny everything and hope you don't appeal.
Universal healthcare would have the same effect. The government would spend a lot more money on preventative care.
Preventative care is DIRT CHEAP compared to any treatment or management of any condition.
That.... Doesn't sound like a bad thing.
It's not, I'm advocating for universal healthcare.
Looking at Canada and Sweden as models, they absolutely do. Getting an actual specialist appointment takes a long long time, but they do get there eventually. And they def do a better job at getting you the meds you need in a timely fashion.
Well, thank the gods of capitalism that I only have to wait 5 months to see a specialist (for a basic intake appointment, mind you, not even one for any real treatment) for the debilitating spinal injury that is causing me severe pain and mobility issues every second of every day. I'd hate to have affordable universal health care that might make me wait to see a specialist.
I like this line of thinking, but I expect they'd just lobby to make the life insurance payout requirements lower than the expected cost of treatment.
Lobbying should be handled legally the same as bribes.
So a-ok as long as it happens after the thing is passed? Because then it's just a tip.