HawkShack.com

I don't have to tell anyone what I'm talking about, but just a brief review. The CEO of one of the nation's largest health insurers was gunned down in a blatant, targeted, cold-blooded assassination. The victim had a wife and family who are now a widow and fatherless.

What's really disgusting is how our nation has reacted to this murder. I was talking to a 30-something gal the other day who thought it was the greatest act in her lifetime. And she's not alone. Has our country really stooped this low so as to cheer such a heinous crime?

It's sad that someone's father and husband was killed and there isn't much of an excuse for it, but it makes me wonder if this isn't the first of more to come considering the gap between the very wealthy and the rest.
The justification as I've heard it is UHC has implemented a new software that has a 93% rejection of claims and has allowed his company to reap many billions in profits. As I've read, their justification is his adoption and continued use of known faulty software has caused thousands of deaths and probably millions of people unnecessarily suffering.

I just hope it's not the beginning of a violent backlash against the current system where it's viewed that very few get so much and the rest go without.

NorthHawk wrote:It's sad that someone's father and husband was killed and there isn't much of an excuse for it, but it makes me wonder if this isn't the first of more to come considering the gap between the very wealthy and the rest.
The justification as I've heard it is UHC has implemented a new software that has a 93% rejection of claims and has allowed his company to reap many billions in profits. As I've read, their justification is his adoption and continued use of known faulty software has caused thousands of deaths and probably millions of people unnecessarily suffering.

I just hope it's not the beginning of a violent backlash against the current system where it's viewed that very few get so much and the rest go without.

United Health Care is a big Medicare Advantage provider with something like 28% market share, and I'm wondering how much of these denied claims are from that sector of their business.

Being that you're Canadian, you're probably not familiar with MA, but in my opinion, it's a huge scam. The ads make it sound great as some have dental and vision plans, some even pay for health club memberships, and it's usually cheaper than traditional Medicare. But what they don't tell you is that you have to go to doctors in their network, that they often times remove doctors from their network, that they don't cover international travel, etc. So, what ends up happening is that your primary care doctor wants you to go see a cancer specialist and they're not in the MA network. To me, it's a travesty that they are not required to at least issue disclaimers in their ads much the way drug companies tell of possible side effects of drugs they're advertising.

I started going to retirement classes 6-8 years before I retired, and they warned me about MA, so what my wife and I have done is gone with traditional Medicare. The difference is that MA is run by for-profit insurance companies while traditional Medicare is much more heavily regulated by the federal government. Traditional Medicare by law cannot advertise, so by watching TV, you get a one-sided look at your options. You hear the pros, but not the cons.

For example, so long as you enroll in traditional Medicare when you're eligible, they cannot deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions. My wife had two, MS and rheumatoid arthritis. You can go to any doctor or specialist you choose anywhere in the country so long as they accept Medicare, which most do.

United Health Care is one of a number of companies that are taking advantage of a stupid, gullible, lazy American public that has been conditioned to think that the government will take care of them. They should either eliminate Medicare Advantage and force everyone to enroll in traditional Medicare or make major changes to MA so the public is more informed about their options.

But back to the murder. It was a cold-hearted murder, a heinous act that no one should be cheering or be happy about. That's what is disturbing to me. The other day, I had a chat with a 30-something lady, and she acted as if the murderer was some sort of superhero. I can't stand Donald Trump, but I don't want to see him murdered, either. And, given how many people seem to have approved of his act, he might not get convicted as it takes all 12 jurors to vote for conviction.

Sympathies for his family but these guys are no angels, they drain millions from our healthcare system to line their own pockets with with a total disregard for all of the people they are refusing coverage to for monetary reasons rather than medical. Our healthcare system is broken and this is just a symptom of the condition. And I fear it's just the beginning.

c_hawkbob wrote:Sympathies for his family but these guys are no angels, they drain millions from our healthcare system to line their own pockets with with a total disregard for all of the people they are refusing coverage to for monetary reasons rather than medical. Our healthcare system is broken and this is just a symptom of the condition. And I fear it's just the beginning.

Of course, refusing coverage is for monetary reasons. What other reason would there be? Unless they have a pre-existing condition clause, they don't reject claims for medical reasons. UHC is a for-profit company. They are in the game to make money. Since insurance companies are heavily regulated by both the federal as well as state governments, we can assume that the majority of rejections are legitimate and are done so according to the terms laid out in the policy. So, before you start pointing your finger at some CEO who you seem to think deserved to die (sympathy only for the family members?), you need to point your finger at the institution that set up the system in the first place: The federal government.

The reason why these insurance companies reject claims is because the government allows them to. It's the government that allows them to sell policies with all sorts of strings attached, like pre-existing conditions, your age, that you have to seek providers only within your service area and/or within their network. If they had to accept people with pre-existing conditions, they're going to have to raise the premiums on all policy holders to cover the extra claims they're going to have to pay out. And the cheaper the premium, the more strings you have to accept in exchange for that lower price, so you might not get to go to that specialist that your PCP wanted to send you to. You get what you pay for.

But I do agree with you that the system is broken. In the case of Medicare Advantage, I've personally encountered a number of people that are completely unaware of the disadvantages MA has vs. traditional Medicare. And it's not just the stupid and illiterate that get taken advantage of. My best friend, a PhD and the smartest person I've ever called a friend, couldn't go to the back and spine specialist that my PCP provider suggested because he wasn't within his MA provider network. If he would have had my traditional Medicare plan, he would have been able to have seen him.

This is more a statement about our healthcare system that there is such hate, especially with the young, as to the state of healthcare. I think long-term the current path of the healthcare system is going to lead to inevitable socialization or there is going to be some real forced pain from the working class. Healthcare is becoming insanely expensive even with insurance. Younger people are dealing with that cost that older people never had to deal with because the insane costs of healthcare were further exacerbated by inflation and lots of companies using dirty tactics like employing people part time so they don't have to give them health insurance.

The Affordable Care Act never worked well as it made insurance expensive for people who couldn't afford the expense while helping the really poor which is the Democrats big problem: they expect the middle and working class to bear the load because the rich don't care about medical insurance expenses as they'll pay out of pocket or can easily afford even expensive insurance or personal doctors.

It's a bigger mess than it is given credit for. I expect a push for major healthcare change at some point in the future.

As far as if the nation has reached a low character point, yeah, we voted in Donald Trump as president and the Democrats went down into the sewers with him and neither of them have come out to the detriment of the nation. It's one of the things I don't like about Trump is he dragged the whole nation into the sewer and the Democrat and Republicans both followed him down there with their behavior as they called each other name's and we found out how many scum exist in both parties that people give a pass to. Both party members crawled into the sewer wishing bad things on each other. I know a coworker who wishes Donald Trump was killed by the assassin who took a shot at him and hopes he gets shot again on top of constantly calling everyone who voted for Trump stupid.

This is the polarized America we live in right now. The United Health CEO to a lot of people on the left is a rich guy in charge of a huge insurance company who has denied claims that have killed children and family members with claim denial while his family is well covered and he makes tons of money denying claims that kill people. If that is your viewpoint, then his killing is justified. Same as a looney right winger might think it is ok to kill an abortion doctor because they believe that doctor is killing babies.

It depends on how you see it. America is real polarized. The healthcare system is a growing issue as it gets more expensive.

River Dog wrote:Of course, refusing coverage is for monetary reasons. What other reason would there be? They are a for-profit company. They are in the game to make money. Since insurance companies are heavily regulated by both the federal as well as state governments, we can assume that the majority of rejections are legitimate and are done so according to the terms laid out in the policy. So, before you start pointing your finger at some CEO who you seem to think deserved to die (sympathy only for the family members?), you need to point your finger at the institution that set up the system in the first place: The federal government.

The reason why these insurance companies reject claims is because the government allows them to. It's the government that allows them to sell policies with all sorts of strings attached, like pre-existing conditions, your age, that you have to seek providers only within your service area and/or within their network. If they had to accept people with pre-existing conditions, they're going to have to raise the premiums on all policy holders to cover the extra claims they're going to have to pay out. And the cheaper the premium, the more strings you have to accept in exchange for that lower price, so you might not get to go to that specialist that your PCP wanted to send you to. You get what you pay for.

But I do agree with you that the system is broken. In the case of Medicare Advantage, I've personally encountered a number of people that are completely unaware of the disadvantages MA has vs. traditional Medicare. And it's not just the stupid and illiterate that get taken advantage of. My best friend, a PhD and the smartest person I've ever called a friend, couldn't go to the back and spine specialist that my PCP provider suggested because he wasn't within his MA provider network. If he would have had my traditional Medicare plan, he would have been able to have seen him.

What do you mean by legitimate? Legal? Do you think a person watching their relative die from a refused claim is thinking, "This is legal of the insurance company" as a good reason? Especially if it is their child?

Our healthcare system puts a monetary value on life, including the life of children and family members. But the people who love these people do not put a monetary value on their loved one's lives. Their family members are priceless to them.

Do you see the incongruence in how each group values a life?

River Dog wrote:Of course, refusing coverage is for monetary reasons. What other reason would there be? They are a for-profit company. They are in the game to make money. Since insurance companies are heavily regulated by both the federal as well as state governments, we can assume that the majority of rejections are legitimate and are done so according to the terms laid out in the policy. So, before you start pointing your finger at some CEO who you seem to think deserved to die (sympathy only for the family members?), you need to point your finger at the institution that set up the system in the first place: The federal government.

The reason why these insurance companies reject claims is because the government allows them to. It's the government that allows them to sell policies with all sorts of strings attached, like pre-existing conditions, your age, that you have to seek providers only within your service area and/or within their network. If they had to accept people with pre-existing conditions, they're going to have to raise the premiums on all policy holders to cover the extra claims they're going to have to pay out. And the cheaper the premium, the more strings you have to accept in exchange for that lower price, so you might not get to go to that specialist that your PCP wanted to send you to. You get what you pay for.

But I do agree with you that the system is broken. In the case of Medicare Advantage, I've personally encountered a number of people that are completely unaware of the disadvantages MA has vs. traditional Medicare. And it's not just the stupid and illiterate that get taken advantage of. My best friend, a PhD and the smartest person I've ever called a friend, couldn't go to the back and spine specialist that my PCP provider suggested because he wasn't within his MA provider network. If he would have had my traditional Medicare plan, he would have been able to have seen him.

Aseahawkfan wrote:What do you mean by legitimate? Legal? Do you think a person watching their relative die from a refused claim is thinking, "This is legal of the insurance company" as a good reason? Especially if it is their child?

What I mean by legitimate is that the rejection is done according to the terms laid out in the policy that the policy holder acknowledged and signed. If the insurance company rejected a claim that was covered in the policy, then you could file a complaint with the state insurance commission to have it overturned. But a lot of people aren't even aware that they can file a complaint and simply accept the decision as final.

I would like to see some of these claims that the murder suspect was referring to when he gunned down the CEO, see why they were rejected and if they weren't, if the policy holder filed a complaint. The problem is that the public is unaware of what's in those policies and what their rights are under the law.

Aseahawkfan wrote:You do realize that our healthcare system puts a monetary value on life, including the life of children and family members. But the people who love these people do not put a monetary value on their loved one's lives. Their family members are priceless to them.

Do you see the incongruence in how each group values a life?

The insurance business isn't unlike the loan business in that regard, and I suspect that there are other businesses that have similar conflicts of interest. Suppose you have to foreclose on someone's house? Even in my former occupation, I once saw an employee of mine get fired because he was arrested for throwing rocks at his girlfriend's house. It was done according to our company's policy of not employing a person convicted of a felony.

"Pre-existing conditions" is a peculiarly American BS excuse to refuse healthcare to people because it costs too much and might eat into those precious profits. The rest of the world knows simply as a person's "medical history".

River Dog wrote:The insurance business isn't unlike the loan business in that regard, and I suspect that there are other businesses that have similar conflicts of interest. Suppose you have to foreclose on someone's house? Even in my former occupation, I once saw an employee of mine get fired because he was arrested for throwing rocks at his girlfriend's house. It was done according to our company's policy of not employing a person convicted of a felony.

Housing is another area in America where a lot of scumbaggery occurs like what happened with balloon mortgages prior to the housing crash. I advised so many people against balloon mortgages, but they wanted the American dream of a house for them and their family. So they went for it. I couldn't believe the government was allowing balloon mortgages. It showed how much financial illiteracy exists in America and it makes me wonder why our school system focuses so heavily on subjects that are less valuable than financial literacy in our complex economic environment.

Healthcare is one of the dirtiest businesses. I doubt anyone cares if they filed a complaint or what not if their mother or child is dying. They're already under tremendous stress and experiencing severe emotion trying to care for a loved one while trying to think clearly as to how to manage the process and pay the bills.

You have loved ones. I know some of them have health issues. If you were getting the run around while they're dying or severely sick, you wouldn't be too happy. If they died due to an insurance denial and the only response from the insurance company was, "We followed the rules. Sorry, sir", doubt that would be comforting.

You're entering into another complex discussion with a lot of variables. We could even bring in the discussion of corporations that have done damage like selling cancer causing agents and refusing to pay medical costs associated, then really delve into the scumbaggery of the American healthcare system.

Or the fact that we the user of health care are not the main purchasers. We basically have socialized healthcare through corporations who decide our options according what a corporation is willing to pay within the rules.

it's not a great system. So a lot of people hate the health insurers that are making enormous profits managing insurance. You see United Healthcare's profits? Immense. How are they making such huge profits off our crappy health? It seems wrong.

I think in these types of cases people know something is wrong but don't know how to change it or think their efforts would be fruitless so in either desperation or anger they take the next step into violence.
In reading comments, it seems to me they don't think they have any other recourse where they can even be heard let alone influence changes. Stress, frustration, anger and more can cause a whole lot of damage to a society when that match is lit.
It's often how revolutions begin - with a seemingly singular act that is picked up and carried forward by others who've had a similar experience or know first hand of others who did. And to drift into the political realm it doesn't help having people like Musk talking about doing away with Medicare and social types of assistance. That part breeds fear and can encourage people to act in desperation.

Edit:
Here's a link to an interview with a former Executive of a Health Care Company and why he left it.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/11/business ... age-digvid

River Dog wrote:The insurance business isn't unlike the loan business in that regard, and I suspect that there are other businesses that have similar conflicts of interest. Suppose you have to foreclose on someone's house? Even in my former occupation, I once saw an employee of mine get fired because he was arrested for throwing rocks at his girlfriend's house. It was done according to our company's policy of not employing a person convicted of a felony.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Housing is another area in America where a lot of scumbaggery occurs like what happened with balloon mortgages prior to the housing crash. I advised so many people against balloon mortgages, but they wanted the American dream of a house for them and their family. So they went for it. I couldn't believe the government was allowing balloon mortgages. It showed how much financial illiteracy exists in America and it makes me wonder why our school system focuses so heavily on subjects that are less valuable than financial literacy in our complex economic environment.

Healthcare is one of the dirtiest businesses. I doubt anyone cares if they filed a complaint or what not if their mother or child is dying. They're already under tremendous stress and experiencing severe emotion trying to care for a loved one while trying to think clearly as to how to manage the process and pay the bills.

You have loved ones. I know some of them have health issues. If you were getting the run around while they're dying or severely sick, you wouldn't be too happy. If they died due to an insurance denial and the only response from the insurance company was, "We followed the rules. Sorry, sir", doubt that would be comforting.

You're entering into another complex discussion with a lot of variables. We could even bring in the discussion of corporations that have done damage like selling cancer causing agents and refusing to pay medical costs associated, then really delve into the scumbaggery of the American healthcare system.

Or the fact that we the user of health care are not the main purchasers. We basically have socialized healthcare through corporations who decide our options according what a corporation is willing to pay within the rules.

it's not a great system. So a lot of people hate the health insurers that are making enormous profits managing insurance. You see United Healthcare's profits? Immense. How are they making such huge profits off our crappy health? It seems wrong.

First of all, I don't care what the problems or justification is, I will never condone a cold-blooded murder like what occurred last week. Period. To defend that murderer for what he did is IMO unconscionable.

Secondly, I think that we are all in agreement that the system at the very least needs a major overhaul, but the question is what should be done. I can't speak for the entire industry, but I do see firsthand what goes on with Medicare as I've been on it for 5 years, and my wife for over 7 years, so I think I can speak with some kind of knowledge about the system. The first change that I would make would be to prohibit Medicare Advantage from advertising their products. There is not enough transparency, too much in fine print. There are people that I've talked to that were completely unaware that most specialists are not in many if not most of the Medicare Advantage networks. I would like to see them go to some type of format like they have with job fairs, college recruitment, etc., rather than advertising on television, which is a horrible way to get information.

Thirdly, the government, or some type of non-partisan, neutral authority, needs to be responsible for handling claims, not the insurer. Having the insurance company make those decisions is like asking the fox to guard the chicken coop. If the insurance company starts losing money on claims, they can raise their premiums. If they raise their premiums too high, they will no longer be competitive. Perhaps they can levy some type of business fee on companies for the purpose of funding a claims authority. Of course, like any fee or tax, it's going to get passed on to the consumer.

Forth, I want to see the same entity that handles claims provide free counseling, classes, fairs, etc. I learned most of what I know about Medicare via our local hospital's non-profit foundation. They used proceeds from the hospital gift store and community donations to pay their counselors, even set up one-on-one sessions with a specialist who gets paid by the foundation, not an insurance company. And being that they are a hospital, they are very familiar with the workings of Medicare. I make a charitable contribution each year.

As far as the issue you raised in your first paragraph, you're preaching to the choir. But rather than blaming the industry, I blame our educational system and parenting. People don't get the right guidance, either in school or at home.

NorthHawk wrote:I think in these types of cases people know something is wrong but don't know how to change it or think their efforts would be fruitless so in either desperation or anger they take the next step into violence.
In reading comments, it seems to me they don't think they have any other recourse where they can even be heard let alone influence changes. Stress, frustration, anger and more can cause a whole lot of damage to a society when that match is lit.
It's often how revolutions begin - with a seemingly singular act that is picked up and carried forward by others who've had a similar experience or know first hand of others who did. And to drift into the political realm it doesn't help having people like Musk talking about doing away with Medicare and social types of assistance. That part breeds fear and can encourage people to act in desperation.

Edit:
Here's a link to an interview with a former Executive of a Health Care Company and why he left it.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/11/business ... age-digvid

Like I said earlier, I'm not ever going to condone cold blooded murder. It's fine to examine the causes as to why this guy did what he did, but I am afraid that if we don't speak out against such evils and instead start qualifying what he did and make it sound like an excuse, that others will be inspired to take similar actions. The man needs to be tarred and feathered as if he murdered a clergyman or school teacher.

Betcha if we start having CEO shootings as regularly as school shooting there will be some sort of gun control.

c_hawkbob wrote:Betcha if we start having CEO shootings as regularly as school shooting there will be some sort of gun control.

The wealthy already want gun control. They could care less if there is heavy gun control. They hire security when they are threatened because they can afford it. That's why so many wealthy people support gun control because they know gun control will protect them far more than it will be protect middle and working class people as it makes it easier for them to secure their assets. The more the upper class can make it so the middle and working class can't fight back, the better for them. Not like Elon Musk and Bill Gates are walking around armed. They hire people to protect them.

You and everyone else can't hire security if someone breaks into your house or robs you or attacks one of your loved ones. You have to learn martials arts or hope they don't come armed while you're holding nothing because you're following the law.

As far as the looneys, there are 350 million Americans. Hard to stop the looneys.

River Dog wrote:First of all, I don't care what the problems or justification is, I will never condone a cold-blooded murder like what occurred last week. Period. To defend that murderer for what he did is IMO unconscionable.

Secondly, I think that we are all in agreement that the system at the very least needs a major overhaul, but the question is what should be done. I can't speak for the entire industry, but I do see firsthand what goes on with Medicare as I've been on it for 5 years, and my wife for over 7 years, so I think I can speak with some kind of knowledge about the system. The first change that I would make would be to prohibit Medicare Advantage from advertising their products. There is not enough transparency, too much in fine print. There are people that I've talked to that were completely unaware that most specialists are not in many if not most of the Medicare Advantage networks. I would like to see them go to some type of format like they have with job fairs, college recruitment, etc., rather than advertising on television, which is a horrible way to get information.

Thirdly, the government, or some type of non-partisan, neutral authority, needs to be responsible for handling claims, not the insurer. Having the insurance company make those decisions is like asking the fox to guard the chicken coop. If the insurance company starts losing money on claims, they can raise their premiums. If they raise their premiums too high, they will no longer be competitive. Perhaps they can levy some type of business fee on companies for the purpose of funding a claims authority. Of course, like any fee or tax, it's going to get passed on to the consumer.

Forth, I want to see the same entity that handles claims provide free counseling, classes, fairs, etc. I learned most of what I know about Medicare via our local hospital's non-profit foundation. They used proceeds from the hospital gift store and community donations to pay their counselors, even set up one-on-one sessions with a specialist who gets paid by the foundation, not an insurance company. And being that they are a hospital, they are very familiar with the workings of Medicare. I make a charitable contribution each year.

As far as the issue you raised in your first paragraph, you're preaching to the choir. But rather than blaming the industry, I blame our educational system and parenting. People don't get the right guidance, either in school or at home.

Well buddy, there's a lot of unconscionable actions out there. I think its unconscionable to look at three year old child with cancer and deny them care because their insurance isn't good enough. But it happens. What are you going to do? Blame the 3 year old for not having a good enough job or blame their parents for not having good enough insurance?

That's the world we live in. If the healthcare gets bad enough while Health Insurance companies are raking in 22 billion dollars, you're going to see more problems. When does it break? Who knows.

Most of the world has some kind of socialized and privatized hybrid system and America is paying the most for healthcare that isn't better than what many socialized or hybrid nations are payiing and they're getting it far cheaper with often better health outcomes.

I expect the number of Americans hating the health insurance industry to stay the same or grow. Though most people won't be driven to murder I would think. That's unusual.

River Dog wrote:First of all, I don't care what the problems or justification is, I will never condone a cold-blooded murder like what occurred last week. Period. To defend that murderer for what he did is IMO unconscionable.

Secondly, I think that we are all in agreement that the system at the very least needs a major overhaul, but the question is what should be done. I can't speak for the entire industry, but I do see firsthand what goes on with Medicare as I've been on it for 5 years, and my wife for over 7 years, so I think I can speak with some kind of knowledge about the system. The first change that I would make would be to prohibit Medicare Advantage from advertising their products. There is not enough transparency, too much in fine print. There are people that I've talked to that were completely unaware that most specialists are not in many if not most of the Medicare Advantage networks. I would like to see them go to some type of format like they have with job fairs, college recruitment, etc., rather than advertising on television, which is a horrible way to get information.

Thirdly, the government, or some type of non-partisan, neutral authority, needs to be responsible for handling claims, not the insurer. Having the insurance company make those decisions is like asking the fox to guard the chicken coop. If the insurance company starts losing money on claims, they can raise their premiums. If they raise their premiums too high, they will no longer be competitive. Perhaps they can levy some type of business fee on companies for the purpose of funding a claims authority. Of course, like any fee or tax, it's going to get passed on to the consumer.

Forth, I want to see the same entity that handles claims provide free counseling, classes, fairs, etc. I learned most of what I know about Medicare via our local hospital's non-profit foundation. They used proceeds from the hospital gift store and community donations to pay their counselors, even set up one-on-one sessions with a specialist who gets paid by the foundation, not an insurance company. And being that they are a hospital, they are very familiar with the workings of Medicare. I make a charitable contribution each year.

As far as the issue you raised in your first paragraph, you're preaching to the choir. But rather than blaming the industry, I blame our educational system and parenting. People don't get the right guidance, either in school or at home.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Well buddy, there's a lot of unconscionable actions out there. I think its unconscionable to look at three year old child with cancer and deny them care because their insurance isn't good enough. But it happens. What are you going to do? Blame the 3 year old for not having a good enough job or blame their parents for not having good enough insurance?

That's the world we live in. If the healthcare gets bad enough while Health Insurance companies are raking in 22 billion dollars, you're going to see more problems. When does it break? Who knows.

Most of the world has some kind of socialized and privatized hybrid system and America is paying the most for healthcare that isn't better than what many socialized or hybrid nations are payiing and they're getting it far cheaper with often better health outcomes.

I expect the number of Americans hating the health insurance industry to stay the same or grow. Though most people won't be driven to murder I would think. That's unusual.

So now you're going to blame the insurance industry for not covering childcare? What's next? Blame the insurance industry because they won't pay for a subway fare so a person can go to work? Are you going to blame the insurance industry because they won't pay for you getting fleeced by an internet scam? It seems that we need a villain to blame for everything bad that happens in our society. It helps us from having to accept responsibility for our own wellbeing.

IMO that's one of the problems with how we look at insurance. We expect it to cover everything. You sound like you expect auto insurance to pay for oil changes on your car. IMO it should be there to cover the unexpected, the catastrophic, fluke incidents like fires and floods, accidents, injuries, etc, things that have a major, 5 or 6-digit price tag. The routine, everyday expenses, like childcare and health club memberships, we should be able to plan for ourselves and budget accordingly. They are predictable expenses.

Even at 70 years old, I don't have dental or vision insurance. There aren't many circumstances where I'm going to run up a $10k bill for vision (Medicare covers cataract surgery), and even if I did have insurance, it's unlikely to pay for the full amount. Same goes for dental insurance. They usually have a maximum amount that they'll pay in any given year. If you want an all-encompassing policy as you seem to think we should have, you'll have to pay a much, much higher premium. For me, just give me the basics and the lower, affordable premium. Teeth cleanings at the dentist I'll pay for myself.

Insurance in general has become or is becoming a predatory type of business. It's something we all need, but it seems there are very few options where the insurer lives up to what they present as coverage.
They rely on fine print and lawyer language to get around paying out what they present that they cover as well as delay claims. Even the adjusters that sell insurance are often frustrated by clear damage claims.
But what people really need to realize is insurance companies are in business to make money, not help those who bought policies regardless of their advertising.
Aren't there still claims that haven't been finalized from the floods in New Jersey about a decade ago? I read a few years ago that there were still some that hadn't paid out yet. And that's just plain wrong.

NorthHawk wrote:Insurance in general has become or is becoming a predatory type of business. It's something we all need, but it seems there are very few options where the insurer lives up to what they present as coverage.
They rely on fine print and lawyer language to get around paying out what they present that they cover as well as delay claims. Even the adjusters that sell insurance are often frustrated by clear damage claims.
But what people really need to realize is insurance companies are in business to make money, not help those who bought policies regardless of their advertising.
Aren't there still claims that haven't been finalized from the floods in New Jersey about a decade ago? I read a few years ago that there were still some that hadn't paid out yet. And that's just plain wrong.

Did you read my post where I brought these issues up? If not, I'll repeat them:

The first change that I would make would be to prohibit Medicare Advantage from advertising their products. There is not enough transparency, too much in fine print. There are people that I've talked to that were completely unaware that most specialists are not in many if not most of the Medicare Advantage networks. I would like to see them go to some type of format like they have with job fairs, college recruitment, etc., rather than advertising on television, which is a horrible way to get information.

..the government, or some type of non-partisan, neutral authority, needs to be responsible for handling claims, not the insurer. Having the insurance company make those decisions is like asking the fox to guard the chicken coop. If the insurance company starts losing money on claims, they can raise their premiums. If they raise their premiums too high, they will no longer be competitive. Perhaps they can levy some type of business fee on companies for the purpose of funding a claims authority. Of course, like any fee or tax, it's going to get passed on to the consumer.

I want to see the same entity that handles claims provide free counseling, classes, fairs, etc. I learned most of what I know about Medicare via our local hospital's non-profit foundation. They used proceeds from the hospital gift store and community donations to pay their counselors, even set up one-on-one sessions with a specialist who gets paid by the foundation, not an insurance company. And being that they are a hospital, they are very familiar with the workings of Medicare. I make a charitable contribution each year.

The insurance industry in this country is heavily regulated by both federal and state governments. If we think that insurance companies are delinquent on paying out claims, there's a means to address those concerns.

Some of the problems with coverage is at least in part a result of over regulation by government. For example, in California, it's getting more and more difficult to obtain homeowners insurance as many companies are pulling out. Companies have to go through the state government before they can raise premiums, so rather than screw with it, many are deciding not to do business in the state, which restricts the insurance market and raises prices. There are obviously other factors, such as the cost to rebuild homes after natural disasters and the increasing frequency of wildfires and floods, but over regulation is a problem.

I want to see more transparency in the products that insurance companies are selling and a fair, unbiased system to determine claims. A lot of the problem is nothing but pure ignorance of the consumer, that they don't know what their insurance covers and doesn't cover until it's time to file a claim. But I also want insurance companies to be able to determine what they charge for premiums. Let the free market regulate the price. Profit has become a dirty word when it should be viewed as a powerful motivator to control prices and sell quality products.

The suspect in the United Health Group CEO murder was charged with committing an act of terrorism:

One count of murder in the second degree is included as an act of terrorism.

Under New York law, such a charge can be brought when an alleged crime is “intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policies of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion and affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.”

This act fits that crime to a 'T''. I hope they hang him from the highest tree in the country.

I just saw a poll that said 40% of younger people (they didn't identify what age range that was) thought he was doing the right thing.
Even if that poll is way off, in the back of my mind I wonder if a fair trial is possible as it seems a divisive topic.

NorthHawk wrote:I just saw a poll that said 40% of younger people (they didn't identify what age range that was) thought he was doing the right thing.
Even if that poll is way off, in the back of my mind I wonder if a fair trial is possible as it seems a divisive topic.

You're exactly right, and I mentioned that earlier in the thread. Even if the evidence is overwhelming that he did it, it only takes one out of the 12 jurors to acquit, and given the publicity it's received and all the people lining up on one side or another, it's impossible to get a fair, unbiased trial. The advantage is clearly with the defense.

There's an interesting story that I remember from back in the 90's about this guy named Mitchell Rupe who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. In this state, the convicted had the choice of death by hanging or lethal injection. He chose hanging then went to court, arguing that because of his excessive weight that he could be decapitated, which could be considered cruel and unusual punishment. He ended up having 3 jury trials for imposition of the death penalty, two that resulted in convictions and a third that was a hung jury where one person voted against hanging. That was 35 out of 36 that voted to hang him, yet he still got off. Read it if you have a minute or two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Rupe

Speaking of which, I just received a post card saying that I had been selected for jury duty, so I went online and filled out a questionnaire. That doesn't mean that I'm going to serve, only that my name will be in the jury pool. I've only served on one jury, and that was nearly 40 years ago.

The killer is from a wealthy family. I'm wondering what his real motive was. It seems very random to shoot the CEO of United Health. As this trial goes on, I wonder if more will come out that makes this case more understandable.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The killer is from a wealthy family. I'm wondering what his real motive was. It seems very random to shoot the CEO of United Health. As this trial goes on, I wonder if more will come out that makes this case more understandable.

Wealthy family is an understatement. They were filthy rich. Tuition at the private high school he attended starts at $37,000/year. He graduated from the U of Penn, an Ivy League college, with a BS in engineering. He was not a customer of United Health, nor did he have any family members or known friends who were UHG customers. It appears that he singled out United Health because they are the largest health insurer in the country.

In my mind, that makes this murder even worse because he did not have any personal involvement, no hot-blooded incident that might have set him off. You could somewhat understand or explain an irrational act if a person gets emotionally stressed, like if he got fired at work or broke up with a girlfriend and suddenly snaps.

But this was a premeditated, cold-blooded murder. This scum bag deserves zero sympathy from any of us. He has no respect for the sanctity of life whatsoever. Had your father been the CEO of that company, he would have shot him just as easily.

River Dog wrote:Wealthy family is an understatement. They were filthy rich. Tuition at the private high school he attended starts at $37,000/year. He graduated from the U of Penn, an Ivy League college, with a BS in engineering. He was not a customer of United Health, nor did he have any family members or known friends who were UHG customers. It appears that he singled out United Health because they are the largest health insurer in the country.

In my mind, that makes this murder even worse because he did not have any personal involvement, no hot-blooded incident that might have set him off. You could somewhat understand or explain an irrational act if a person gets emotionally stressed, like if he got fired at work or broke up with a girlfriend and suddenly snaps.

But this was a premeditated, cold-blooded murder. This scum bag deserves zero sympathy from any of us. He has no respect for the sanctity of life whatsoever. Had your father been the CEO of that company, he would have shot him just as easily.

I guess this guy could be looking to be a rich guy turned working class hero for getting back at the evil health insurance companies, but we'll see if something else comes out during the trial. Pretty crazy case.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I guess this guy could be looking to be a rich guy turned working class hero for getting back at the evil health insurance companies, but we'll see if something else comes out during the trial. Pretty crazy case.

I like to think of myself as being an open minded, objective person who doesn't jump to conclusions based on media reports. But unless something surfaces to contradict what has already been reported, it is hard for me to imagine a scenario which would excuse his actions as being justified.

But what really disturbs me is that a large number of my fellow Americans have embraced this cold-blooded assassin as some type of virtuosos Robin Hood and that due to the victim's position as CEO of a company they don't like that the man got what he had coming to him and that he deserved to die. Class warfare.

River Dog wrote:I like to think of myself as being an open minded, objective person who doesn't jump to conclusions based on media reports. But unless something surfaces to contradict what has already been reported, it is hard for me to imagine a scenario which would excuse his actions as being justified.

But what really disturbs me is that a large number of my fellow Americans have embraced this cold-blooded assassin as some type of virtuosos Robin Hood and that due to the victim's position as CEO of a company they don't like that the man got what he had coming to him and that he deserved to die. Class warfare.

I'm thinking something more nefarious will come out like he was paid by someone that the United Health CEO pissed off or maybe United Health CEO was sleeping with this guy's girlfriend or something crazy. I'm thinking something really strange is going to come out during this trial. It doesn't make sense yet, but maybe it will.

River Dog wrote:I like to think of myself as being an open minded, objective person who doesn't jump to conclusions based on media reports. But unless something surfaces to contradict what has already been reported, it is hard for me to imagine a scenario which would excuse his actions as being justified.

But what really disturbs me is that a large number of my fellow Americans have embraced this cold-blooded assassin as some type of virtuosos Robin Hood and that due to the victim's position as CEO of a company they don't like that the man got what he had coming to him and that he deserved to die. Class warfare.

I

Aseahawkfan wrote:'m thinking something more nefarious will come out like he was paid by someone that the United Health CEO pissed off or maybe United Health CEO was sleeping with this guy's girlfriend or something crazy. I'm thinking something really strange is going to come out during this trial. It doesn't make sense yet, but maybe it will.

This guy was from a very wealthy family, so if was paid to do this, it would have had to have been one helluva lot of money for him to have risked his life for it. I think that scenario is very unlikely.

I suppose that some sort of sex triangle is possible, but this guy posted a manifesto that said "The second amendment means I am my own chief executive and commander in chief of my own military", wrote the words "Deny", "Depose," and "Defend," terms used by insurance companies when they reject a claim, on the bullet casings. At least from what we currently know, this guy had a hard on for the health insurance industry if not corporate America in general.

River Dog wrote:This guy was from a very wealthy family, so if was paid to do this, it would have had to have been one helluva lot of money for him to have risked his life for it. I think that scenario is very unlikely.

I suppose that some sort of sex triangle is possible, but this guy posted a manifesto that said "The second amendment means I am my own chief executive and commander in chief of my own military", wrote the words "Deny", "Depose," and "Defend," terms used by insurance companies when they reject a claim, on the bullet casings. At least from what we currently know, this guy had a hard on for the health insurance industry if not corporate America in general.

The paid killer as a job scenario is unlikely. I'm not sure this guy expected to get caught. There is a possibility he wrote the words on the bullets to push the authorities away from his real reason for the killing. Being he is rich, does he really have a good reason to be mad at the insurance companies? If he planned the crime for other reasons, he would certainly want to push the authorities in that direction as that would have them looking for a leftist radical, likely less wealthy.

That's why I'm interested to see if something else comes out as the trial goes on. It could be as simple as he was a highly liberalized, violent person looking to start some revolution. Why take the all the effort to avoid notice and use a silencer if you want to make a statement? The evidence almost seemed obvious and planted, while the killing was done covering up his face and using a silencer, then disappearing from the scene of the crime. He was caught because we have a lot of cameras now and can do amazing stuff with them.

So going to make for an interesting trial that will prove he's a generic crazy or some darker reason for the killing comes out. Given how toxic political rhetoric has been lately, I guess another guy wanting to take it to violent levels would not surprise me.

River Dog wrote:This guy was from a very wealthy family, so if was paid to do this, it would have had to have been one helluva lot of money for him to have risked his life for it. I think that scenario is very unlikely.

I suppose that some sort of sex triangle is possible, but this guy posted a manifesto that said "The second amendment means I am my own chief executive and commander in chief of my own military", wrote the words "Deny", "Depose," and "Defend," terms used by insurance companies when they reject a claim, on the bullet casings. At least from what we currently know, this guy had a hard on for the health insurance industry if not corporate America in general.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The paid killer as a job scenario is unlikely. I'm not sure this guy expected to get caught. There is a possibility he wrote the words on the bullets to push the authorities away from his real reason for the killing. Being he is rich, does he really have a good reason to be mad at the insurance companies? If he planned the crime for other reasons, he would certainly want to push the authorities in that direction as that would have them looking for a leftist radical, likely less wealthy.

That's why I'm interested to see if something else comes out as the trial goes on. It could be as simple as he was a highly liberalized, violent person looking to start some revolution. Why take the all the effort to avoid notice and use a silencer if you want to make a statement? The evidence almost seemed obvious and planted, while the killing was done covering up his face and using a silencer, then disappearing from the scene of the crime. He was caught because we have a lot of cameras now and can do amazing stuff with them.

So going to make for an interesting trial that will prove he's a generic crazy or some darker reason for the killing comes out. Given how toxic political rhetoric has been lately, I guess another guy wanting to take it to violent levels would not surprise me.

He probably thought that he had a chance to get away with it otherwise why go to such great lengths to conceal his identity and attempt to elude the police? But he was obviously a novice as he was very sloppy, left all sorts of clues. Heck, his gun jammed on him several times, so you know he wasn't too used to firing it.

There is a chance that he might have had an accomplice or someone coaching him, but I doubt seriously that anything will surface in the trial that would change my assumption about his motive.

I hope that they keep the TV cameras out of the courtroom and not turn this trial into another OJ Simpson circus. My fear would be that it might inspire a copycat crime.

I do hope that the insurance industry takes notice and enacts some reforms. My preference would be that the industry do it themselves, self-regulate, but if they won't, then I would have no problem with the government stepping in and force feeding them. Even if there is nothing wrong with how they are currently handling claims, there's a lot of mistrust amongst the public. But it's going to be a balancing act. If the government comes down too hard on them and makes their business more problematic, they'll pass their costs on to the consumer or, like what happened in California, decide that they can't make any money on it and get out of the business, quit writing policies. Either way, the consumer will end up paying more and/or they'll make it even more inaccessible.

From Newsweek:

An attorney has said that jury selection may be very difficult in Luigi Mangione's murder trial as there is so much public sympathy for the alleged killer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

Neama Rahmani, who was a federal prosecutor in California, said that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will have to be very careful during the jury selection process.

"I've never seen an alleged murderer receive so much sympathy. To many people, Mangione is a hero of sorts," Rahmani said.

Rahmani, now president of West Coast Trial Lawyers law firm in California, said that prosecutors must look out for pro-Mangione sympathizers who may try to get on the jury.

"District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office is going to have to weed out 'stealth jurors' during voir dire. They may want to acquit to send a message to health insurance companies," he said.

Voir Dire is the process through which prosecution and defense teams ask jurors written and oral questions to assess their sympathies.

NorthHawk wrote:From Newsweek:

An attorney has said that jury selection may be very difficult in Luigi Mangione's murder trial as there is so much public sympathy for the alleged killer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

Neama Rahmani, who was a federal prosecutor in California, said that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will have to be very careful during the jury selection process.

"I've never seen an alleged murderer receive so much sympathy. To many people, Mangione is a hero of sorts," Rahmani said.

Rahmani, now president of West Coast Trial Lawyers law firm in California, said that prosecutors must look out for pro-Mangione sympathizers who may try to get on the jury.

"District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office is going to have to weed out 'stealth jurors' during voir dire. They may want to acquit to send a message to health insurance companies," he said.

Voir Dire is the process through which prosecution and defense teams ask jurors written and oral questions to assess their sympathies.

Yep, that's exactly what I was afraid of. It's a very sad state of affairs when so many people think that a law-abiding citizen representing an industry they don't like deserved to die and are perfectly willing to turn him loose to perhaps kill another CEO.

River Dog wrote:He probably thought that he had a chance to get away with it otherwise why go to such great lengths to conceal his identity and attempt to elude the police? But he was obviously a novice as he was very sloppy, left all sorts of clues. Heck, his gun jammed on him several times, so you know he wasn't too used to firing it.

There is a chance that he might have had an accomplice or someone coaching him, but I doubt seriously that anything will surface in the trial that would change my assumption about his motive.

I hope that they keep the TV cameras out of the courtroom and not turn this trial into another OJ Simpson circus. My fear would be that it might inspire a copycat crime.

I do hope that the insurance industry takes notice and enacts some reforms. My preference would be that the industry do it themselves, self-regulate, but if they won't, then I would have no problem with the government stepping in and force feeding them. Even if there is nothing wrong with how they are currently handling claims, there's a lot of mistrust amongst the public. But it's going to be a balancing act. If the government comes down too hard on them and makes their business more problematic, they'll pass their costs on to the consumer or, like what happened in California, decide that they can't make any money on it and get out of the business, quit writing policies. Either way, the consumer will end up paying more and/or they'll make it even more inaccessible.

Healthcare and health insurance is not good as a private industry. It doesn't fit the capitalist model well at all. It's far more like the police or fire. Something you need, that you don't want to use that should be managed in the same way as the police or fire department or military. Socialization is inevitable, but whether it is violently enforced or properly built is another matter.

The fact that economists can't see why healthcare doesn't operate well as a private industry is pure corporate greed. It's so easy to apply tests to show how clearly health insurance is bad using a capitalist model.

Something as simple as a broken leg shows why. If you break your leg, you don't call around looking for the best price for the best service. You have no time for that. You need the leg repaired. If your leg is broken, you are less capable of producing income to pay a higher price or be more productive. There may be additional complications that require medical care involving rehabilitation and repair for an injury that leads to decreased productivity.

The individual is also not the primary buyer of health insurance even though they are the primary users. Companies purchase health insurance as cheap as possible regulated by the government. The volume they pay for health insurance policies forces them into the health insurance business without regard for the primary users as they want to pay the cheapest price they can get away with to keep health insurance costs low.

Health insurance companies make the most money from the volume sales to big corporations as individual health insurance is too costly for working people to pay. So they design health insurance less to provide quality to an individual consumer as a normal capitalist good or service would have to do. Their health plans are designed to sell to corporate customers to comply with legal requirements set by the government.

In essence, medical care is socialized through corporations and businesses until you retire and enter the socialized medical care system.

Other more intelligently managed nations realized this a while back and socialized healthcare to make it similar to other social services that should not be for profit. It has helped their economies and societies allowing legislation for better control of the food supply and the teaching of health from a young age rather than allowing corporations to both sell the food and drinks that create health issues while also profiting off the health issues created by this terrible food environment leading to Americans that spend far more for healthcare for equal to lower healthcare outcomes while food companies also profit off selling massive unhealthy food to create the situation to begin with.

That's why even though we pay enormous money for healthcare, our life expectancies aren't better. We're basically pay more for less which isn't quality capitalism at all because healthcare is not a service that responds well to capitalism.

I hope someone gets enough juice to move us to a more Scandinavian model as Sweden has more than proven socialized healthcare leads to a better business environment, not a worse one.

River Dog wrote:Yep, that's exactly what I was afraid of. It's a very sad state of affairs when so many people think that a law-abiding citizen representing an industry they don't like deserved to die and are perfectly willing to turn him loose to perhaps kill another CEO.

Americans are hanging on to an idea of healthcare that doesn't fit the reality of our current situation. Even you do this as you try to prove privatization works when it clearly doesn't. It's a bad system. It's only going to get worse. It's unfixable as a private industry. It should be moved to a socialized industry with health being the focus, not profits.

For some reason Americans think highly of their socialized military, police, and fire department, but for some reason think they want a privatized healthcare system that makes more money the sicker people are.

McDonalds selling more Big Macs or Microsoft more software is capitalism in operation. United Healthcare selling more insurance while making more money doing so while wanting to pay out as little as possible to maximize profits while the healthcare industry makes money off more people being sick wanting to charge the highest possible rates for the maximum possible sickness is the very essence of a conflict of interest.

If people were healthy, doctors would be out of business. If health insurance companies pay too much to doctors or healthcare, they don't make as much money and may go bankrupt.

That is not great capitalism at all as capitalism utilizes competition to improve products and services wants to sell as much as possible, but when healthcare's money is made off something no one wants more of you're already starting off on the wrong foot. No one wants more sickness and they don't make more money the sicker they are which is the normal capitalist model.

The sicker you are, the less productive you are and yet your care costs more and more. So it is more profitable to let you die once you can't afford to pay more and more to fix your illness.

Terrible situation for the capitalist model.

River Dog wrote:Yep, that's exactly what I was afraid of. It's a very sad state of affairs when so many people think that a law-abiding citizen representing an industry they don't like deserved to die and are perfectly willing to turn him loose to perhaps kill another CEO.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Americans are hanging on to an idea of healthcare that doesn't fit the reality of our current situation. Even you do this as you try to prove privatization works when it clearly doesn't. It's a bad system. It's only going to get worse. It's unfixable as a private industry. It should be moved to a socialized industry with health being the focus, not profits.

For some reason Americans think highly of their privatized military, police, and fire department, but for some reason think they want a privatized healthcare system that makes more money the sicker people are.

McDonalds selling more Big Macs or Microsoft more software is capitalism in operation. United Healthcare selling more insurance while making more money doing so while wanting to pay out as little as possible to maximize profits while the healthcare industry makes money off more people being sick wanting to charge the highest possible rates for the maximum possible sickness is the very essence of a conflict of interest.

If people were healthy, doctors would be out of business. If health insurance companies pay too much to doctors or healthcare, they don't make as much money and may go bankrupt.

That is not great capitalism at all as capitalism utilizes competition to improve products and services wants to sell as much as possible, but when healthcare's money is made off something no one wants more of you're already starting off on the wrong foot. No one wants more sickness and they don't make more money the sicker they are which is the normal capitalist model.

The sicker you are, the less productive you are and yet your care costs more and more. So it is more profitable to let you die once you can't afford to pay more and more to fix your illness.

Terrible situation for the capitalist model.

How is it that I am trying to prove that privatization works? I never once said that the current model works.

What I am saying is that if you take the profit motive out of the equation, which is what you're talking about when you advocate socialized medicine, companies will not have the financial incentive it takes to run an R&D department that's necessary if medicine is going to advance and come up with new drugs and procedures to cure diseases and improve the quality of our lives. If you eliminate the profit motive, someone else, ie the government, would have to pick up the tab and fund such research.

According to the FDA, 90% of new drugs that undergo clinical trials never make it to the market. Someone has to pay for what it took to develop and test those drugs. That's why new drugs that do make it to market cost so much, because in addition to the production and distribution costs, the drug companies have to recover what it cost not only to develop the 10% of the successful drugs that made it to market, but also the development costs for the 90% that didn't. If you deny companies the large profit margin it takes to pay for all those failed drugs, they will not have the financial incentive necessary to fund R&D. Why spend millions when your product is going to sell for just a few bucks?

If you want to go to socialized medicine, you have to accept one of two scenarios: Life without hope of a cure for Alzheimer's, arthritis, and other diseases, or a huge tax burden. Our politicians can't or won't fund Social Security. What makes you think that they're going to fund a huge, socialized medicine initiative?

I was reading about some models in Europe and the Gov't signs a contract with a private insurer. When a person needs treatment they just go to the doctor or clinic and they don't pay out of their own pocket.
If there is a fight about what is covered, the Insurance Company fights it out with the Gov't and the patient continues on with life largely oblivious to what's going on in the background.
It seemed an interesting model to me.

NorthHawk wrote:I was reading about some models in Europe and the Gov't signs a contract with a private insurer. When a person needs treatment they just go to the doctor or clinic and they don't pay out of their own pocket.
If there is a fight about what is covered, the Insurance Company fights it out with the Gov't and the patient continues on with life largely oblivious to what's going on in the background.
It seemed an interesting model to me.

That's similar to what I want to do see happen here, get the decision-making authority away from the insurer. Let an independent claims adjustor, whether that be the government or some other authority not connected with the insurer, make the call.

But we can't compare European and other socialized health care markets with that which exists in the United States. For example, most new drugs are sold first in the US where they can charge higher prices and reclaim R&D costs. The US is basically subsidizing the rest of the world by compensating drug companies for their R&D expenses. It sucks for us here in the US to have to pay that higher price so you folks in Canada can enjoy lower prices. Perhaps they can come to some sort of international agreement between countries to fund research. That's my major objection to socialized medicine.

Take a look at the pandemic. The three primary vaccines were developed by a US company, Moderna, a German American collaboration that resulted in the Pfizer vaccine, and Johnson & Johnson, another US company, because they have established R&D departments. Take away the profit motive and you take away R&D.

There’s still a large profit margin for European companies. If there wasn’t, companies like Bayer, Merck, and Roche Holding among others wouldn’t be successful multi hundred billion dollar companies. A lot of R&D is done in other countries than the US.

NorthHawk wrote:There’s still a large profit margin for European companies. If there wasn’t, companies like Bayer, Merck, and Roche Holding among others wouldn’t be successful multi hundred billion dollar companies. A lot of R&D is done in other countries than the US.

The R&D might take place in other countries, but the lion's share of new drugs is marketed first in the United States where they can make more money to pay for it:

From 2018 to 2022, the United States had the highest number of new drugs sold, with 212 new drugs available by the end of 2022. This accounted for 74% of all new drugs launched during that period.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/h ... n3/04.html

To be fair, there are other factors besides economics that restrict companies from launching new drugs in other countries as some have tighter governmental regulations. But the fact is that drug companies get a helluva lot more money from selling their new drugs in the US than they do internationally. Take that cash cow away from them and R&D dries up worldwide.

Here's the full text of that finding from the link above:

Key Findings

The United States had more total new drugs sold by the end of 2022 (74 percent of all new drugs) compared with any other individual country in the study. Germany had the second-highest share (52 percent of new drugs).

New drugs sold in both the United States and at least one other country by the end of 2022 accounted for 90 percent of 2022 spending on all new drugs in the United States.

More than half of new drugs were launched first in the United States, and there was an average lag of about one year between launch in the United States and launch in other major markets (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom).

Some new drugs launched in other countries before they were launched in the United States; however, the likelihood of launch of a new drug was considerably higher in the United States versus in other countries.