United Healthcare CEO killed

[+ ApexNomad]

15 minutes ago, augustus said:

Wasn't long ago that Obamacare was supposed to bring down costs and deliver better healthcare and all its supporters passionately believed it would work.  Well, what happened????  The system pre-Obamacare was better and less expensive.  A high-risk pool could have been set up to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

Socialized medicine healthcare is great for routine care and abysmal for other needs.  It's a death sentence for people with cancer and heart disease.  

It’s easy to point to the gaps in Obamacare as proof that it didn’t work, but I think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. In many ways, Obamacare represented the first real attempt to address systemic issues in our healthcare system on a national scale, something that previous administrations had failed to do for decades. Was it perfect? No. But is it fair to call it a massive failure when it expanded access to millions of people, eliminated the pre-existing condition loophole, and reduced the uninsured rate to historic lows? I don’t think so.

What we often forget in the criticism of the ACA is that, despite its shortcomings, it fundamentally shifted the conversation about healthcare in the U.S. Yes, premiums and drug costs still remain high, and there are gaps, especially in states that chose not to expand Medicaid. But to dismiss the law outright ignores how much it helped millions of Americans who were previously shut out of healthcare. When we hold any system to a standard of perfection, we risk losing sight of the progress it made. In fact, even today, millions of people benefit from its protections—especially in terms of ensuring access to care for the most vulnerable populations.

The reality is that healthcare reform is never going to be a one-size-fits-all solution, and any attempt to solve these deep-rooted problems will face hurdles—whether it’s Obamacare, Medicare for All, or something else entirely. What I think we need to focus on is not just criticizing what hasn’t worked, but also finding ways to improve and build on the progress we’ve made. It’s not perfect, but Obamacare was a critical step toward a more inclusive healthcare system. And any future solutions will require learning from its challenges to create something that works for everyone.

[caliguy]

42 minutes ago, augustus said:

Tell me a socialized system that works please WITHOUT rationing and waiting lists. 

Wait times in universal coverage systems

Data from other nations show that universal coverage does not necessarily result in substantially longer wait times. In fact, there are a variety of circumstances in which the United States’ peer nations have shorter wait times.

The most comprehensive source of international comparative data on health care is the Commonwealth Fund’s “Mirror, Mirror” series, which, in 2017, examined a variety of metrics across 10 European countries and the United States. Four of these metrics were particularly useful for studying wait times.¹³

• Patients reported that they saw a doctor or nurse on the same or next day the last time they sought medical care.
• Doctors reported that patients often experience difficulty getting specialized tests—for example, CT and MRI scans.
• Patients reported that they waited two months or longer for a specialist appointment.
• Patients reported that they waited four months or longer for elective or nonemergency surgery.

On each of these metrics, the United States performed worse than several nations with universal coverage, though no individual nation outperforms the United States on every metric. For example, only 51 percent of U.S. patients reported being able to see a provider within a day, compared with 53 percent, 56 percent, and 67 percent of patients in Germany, France, and Australia, respectively.¹⁴ Similarly, nearly 30 percent of U.S. doctors reported that their patients have difficulty getting a specialized test, compared with only 11 percent and 15 percent of doctors in Australia and Sweden, respectively.¹⁵ U.S. outcomes on the other two metrics were better across the board but still show that the United States performs worse than other nations with more equitable health care coverage systems. For instance, in the United States, 4 percent of patients reported waiting four months or longer for nonemergency surgery, compared with only 2 percent of French patients and 0 percent of German patients.¹⁶ For specialist appointments, the situation is even worse: 6 percent of U.S. patients reported waiting two months or longer for an appointment, compared with only 4 percent of French patients and 3 percent of German patients.¹⁷

[+ ApexNomad]

36 minutes ago, augustus said:

The "potential for overall savings and cost efficiencies" wouldn't come close the trillions of dollars supplied by the private sector provided insurance system annually.  The numbers don't add up.  

I hear you, I do. I understand your concerns. You’re right that the current private sector system involves massive spending, but I think it’s important to examine where that money goes and the inefficiencies within it. The private insurance system incurs high administrative costs—about 15-20% of premiums go toward overhead and profits, compared to Medicare’s 2%. These costs don’t directly benefit patient care, and reducing them would free up substantial resources.

The profit-driven model of the private sector doesn’t prioritize preventative care. This leads people to delay necessary treatment until it becomes more urgent and expensive. This is a form of rationing—rationing by price—where those who can’t afford care suffer the consequences. While countries with socialized healthcare do face some waiting lists, these are often overstated compared to the U.S., where lack of insurance or underinsurance results in similar or longer delays for the most vulnerable.

You’re right that Medicare for All would be expensive in the short term, but over time, bulk purchasing, negotiating drug prices, and eliminating the profit margins of private insurers would save the country trillions. The U.S. currently spends far more on prescription drugs than other countries, largely because we lack the ability to negotiate prices with Big Pharma. Socialized systems negotiate directly with drug manufacturers, saving billions.

The real question for me isn’t whether the transition would be flawless, but whether we can afford to continue a system where healthcare is driven by profit, leading to preventable deaths because people can’t access the care they need.

[+ augustus]

36 minutes ago, ApexNomad said:

The reality is that healthcare reform is never going to be a one-size-fits-all solution, and any attempt to solve these deep-rooted problems will face hurdles—whether it’s Obamacare, Medicare for All, or something else entirely.

Agreed, BUT eliminating the private insurance system would be a catastrophe.  We need tort reform and quick.  We need to stop the ridiculous imbeciles that flood the ER's with non-urgent issues.  The penalties for not having insurance are not enough to make up the costs for the 100 million on Medicaid, one of the phony promises of Obamacare.  And so on and so on.

Edited December 16, 2024 by augustus

[+ augustus]

20 minutes ago, caliguy said:

Wait times in universal coverage systems

Data from other nations show that universal coverage does not necessarily result in substantially longer wait times. In fact, there are a variety of circumstances in which the United States’ peer nations have shorter wait times.

The most comprehensive source of international comparative data on health care is the Commonwealth Fund’s “Mirror, Mirror” series, which, in 2017, examined a variety of metrics across 10 European countries and the United States. Four of these metrics were particularly useful for studying wait times.¹³

• Patients reported that they saw a doctor or nurse on the same or next day the last time they sought medical care.
• Doctors reported that patients often experience difficulty getting specialized tests—for example, CT and MRI scans.
• Patients reported that they waited two months or longer for a specialist appointment.
• Patients reported that they waited four months or longer for elective or nonemergency surgery.

On each of these metrics, the United States performed worse than several nations with universal coverage, though no individual nation outperforms the United States on every metric. For example, only 51 percent of U.S. patients reported being able to see a provider within a day, compared with 53 percent, 56 percent, and 67 percent of patients in Germany, France, and Australia, respectively.¹⁴ Similarly, nearly 30 percent of U.S. doctors reported that their patients have difficulty getting a specialized test, compared with only 11 percent and 15 percent of doctors in Australia and Sweden, respectively.¹⁵ U.S. outcomes on the other two metrics were better across the board but still show that the United States performs worse than other nations with more equitable health care coverage systems. For instance, in the United States, 4 percent of patients reported waiting four months or longer for nonemergency surgery, compared with only 2 percent of French patients and 0 percent of German patients.¹⁶ For specialist appointments, the situation is even worse: 6 percent of U.S. patients reported waiting two months or longer for an appointment, compared with only 4 percent of French patients and 3 percent of German patients.¹⁷

Sorry, that's bogus.  Only 2 per cent of French patients waited 4 or months for nonemergency surgery.  I don't think so.  What kind of cut and paste is that??

Edited December 16, 2024 by augustus

[+ augustus]

18 minutes ago, ApexNomad said:

The profit-driven model of the private sector doesn’t prioritize preventative care.

It actually does.  Many people take advantage of checkups.   Many people don't bother.  That's a personal choice.  

20 minutes ago, ApexNomad said:

high administrative costs—about 15-20% of premiums go toward overhead and profits, compared to Medicare’s 2%

Not true, that's a Bernie Sanders argument and PolitiFact determined it was half-true at best.  Obamacare limited insurance company profits.  A big problem with Medicare is that there is massive fraud. as they basically pay out any claim that comes before them.

[+ ApexNomad]

18 minutes ago, augustus said:

It actually does.  Many people take advantage of checkups.   Many people don't bother.  That's a personal choice.  

Not true, that's a Bernie Sanders argument and PolitiFact determined it was half-true at best.  Obamacare limited insurance company profits.  A big problem with Medicare is that there is massive fraud. as they basically pay out any claim that comes before them.

The fact that Medicare’s administrative costs are around 2%, while private insurers spend 15-20% on overhead and profits, isn’t a partisan claim, but a well-documented statistic. The issue here isn’t whether Medicare is perfect, but whether we could improve efficiency and reduce costs in the system by addressing these disparities. Independent research has consistently shown that Medicare operates at a much lower cost than the private sector.

Fraud exists in every system, but comparing Medicare’s fraud issues to the waste and exploitation within the private sector is misleading. Private insurers are notorious for denying claims, overcharging, and hiking premiums—practices that directly harm consumers. (Have you seen the news lately?) While Medicare is not immune to fraud, it has far better oversight and the capacity to address these challenges more effectively than the profit-driven private insurance system. 

The debate here isn’t about whether Medicare is flawless, but whether our current system is serving everyone efficiently. The private sector model has shown that its profit-driven incentives often come at the expense of preventative care and cost containment, leaving many Americans with inadequate care and skyrocketing medical costs.

Healthcare is a fundamental right. Choosing not to seek preventative care is one thing, but ignoring the systemic barriers that prevent many from even having the option of affordable care is another.

Dismissing the systemic inefficiencies in the current model doesn’t solve the problem—it just kicks the can down the road.

[BSR]

7 minutes ago, ApexNomad said:

Healthcare is a fundamental right.

I never understood this argument, nor do I agree.  Food isn't a fundamental right, clothing isn't a fundamental right, housing isn't a fundamental right, no other human need is a fundamental right.  Yet so many believe that healthcare is.

[+ ApexNomad]

7 minutes ago, BSR said:

I never understood this argument, nor do I agree.  Food isn't a fundamental right, clothing isn't a fundamental right, housing isn't a fundamental right, no other human need is a fundamental right.  Yet so many believe that healthcare is.

Food, clothing, and housing are also fundamental needs, and while no one is suggesting they must all be provided for free, we do acknowledge a collective responsibility to ensure people don’t starve or freeze. That’s why we have programs like SNAP, public housing, and shelters. Healthcare is no different—it’s about protecting lives and giving people the chance to contribute to society. A system that allows people to die or suffer unnecessarily because they can’t afford care is one that undermines the very fabric of our humanity and community.

[+ ApexNomad]

25 minutes ago, BSR said:

I never understood this argument, nor do I agree.  Food isn't a fundamental right, clothing isn't a fundamental right, housing isn't a fundamental right, no other human need is a fundamental right.  Yet so many believe that healthcare is.

The concept of healthcare as a fundamental right stems from the basic principle that access to life-sustaining care is essential to human dignity and equality. Healthcare is not simply a commodity to be purchased by those who can afford it—it is a moral and practical imperative for any society that values its people.

Legally, we’ve already acknowledged healthcare as a right in specific contexts. For example, emergency rooms are required to provide stabilizing treatment regardless of ability to pay. Programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP ensure healthcare access for specific populations.

These systems don’t exist in isolation—they reflect a collective recognition that no one should die or suffer needlessly because they were born into poverty or marginalized circumstances.

As a gay man, I know firsthand how the denial of healthcare can affect a community. As many of us here do. The early years of the AIDS epidemic revealed how disastrous it is when healthcare is treated as a privilege rather than a right. Without accessible treatment, people—like so many of our brothers and sisters—were left to die because they didn’t have insurance, or were denied coverage altogether. The LGBTQ+ community fought for their lives—and for equitable healthcare—and made progress. That fight taught us that healthcare disparities are deeply tied to systemic discrimination, and unless access is treated as a right, the most vulnerable will always suffer the most. It’s a reality that still brings me to tears.

This is not just a philosophical issue—it’s about creating a society where everyone has the opportunity to live fully. We provide public funding for education, clean water, and other public goods because we understand that certain rights are necessary for the success and sustainability of a society. Healthcare must be viewed the same way.

[BSR]

4 hours ago, ApexNomad said:

Food, clothing, and housing are also fundamental needs, and while no one is suggesting they must all be provided for free, we do acknowledge a collective responsibility to ensure people don’t starve or freeze. That’s why we have programs like SNAP, public housing, and shelters. Healthcare is no different—it’s about protecting lives and giving people the chance to contribute to society. A system that allows people to die or suffer unnecessarily because they can’t afford care is one that undermines the very fabric of our humanity and community.

I see a difference between a moral and a legal obligation.  While I agree we have a moral obligation to help the homeless, I don't think we should be forced to pay for housing for all homeless.  In contrast, I view a trial by jury and legal representation as legal obligations.

I could expound on my reasoning but shan't for 2 reasons:  doing so will inevitably become a (prohibited) political discussion (collective responsibility-->collectivism-->communi ... oops, better stop!), and perhaps more important, I am quite sure that nothing I say will change your mind even one iota.

Edited December 16, 2024 by BSR
Typo + word choice

[+ Italiano]

8 hours ago, augustus said:

Wasn't long ago that Obamacare was supposed to bring down costs and deliver better healthcare and all its supporters passionately believed it would work.  Well, what happened????  The system pre-Obamacare was better and less expensive.  A high-risk pool could have been set up to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

Socialized medicine healthcare is great for routine care and abysmal for other needs.  It's a death sentence for people with cancer and heart disease.  

WOW! We must have lived in two different USA before 2009....🙄

I am SO waiting for next year's "CONCEPT", anyway.

Edited December 16, 2024 by Italiano

[pubic_assistance]

6 hours ago, BSR said:

While I agree we have a moral obligation to help the homeless, I don't think we should be forced to pay for housing for all homeless. 

Who gets go determine this morality ?

Most "homeless" aren't just lacking a home.

Health insurance used to be for hospitalization..not regular care. You paid your doctor / you paid for your medication. By wrapping everything into insurance coverage they merely made all the normal expenses MORE expensive becasue now there's a gigantic pile of money to draw from...and everyone raised their prices to take advantage of it.

Edited December 16, 2024 by pubic_assistance
spelling

[+ augustus]

45 minutes ago, Italiano said:

I am SO waiting for next year's "CONCEPT", anyway

So am I.  Can't wait.  Your side has been right along.🙄

[+ augustus]

42 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

By wrapping everything into insurance coverage they merely made all the normal expenses MORE expensive becasue how there's a gigantic pile of money to draw from.

Exactly.  Unlimited demand has been created.  There are people who never go or sparingly go to doctors, like me.  There are many others that go to the doctor or the ER because they have a stubbed toe or the sniffles.  

[pubic_assistance]

1 hour ago, augustus said:

There are many others that go to the doctor or the ER because they have a stubbed toe or the sniffles.  

Exactly.

By creating a "health insurance" system  instead of "hospitalization insurance" they built a monster that needs to be fed.

I remember going to the doctor when I was a kid. My mother would PAY the doctor with a few $20s. When you'd go to the pharmacy for medication you'd PAY for your medicine. Also $10 or $20. Now the insurance system is so bloated with cash that everyone from Hospitals to Pharmaceutical companies are happily suckling at its teet. Most everyone who travels to Mexico makes a stop at LaFarmacia to take advantage of the prices on pharmaceuticals that are 10x cheaper for the SAME drugs. Only in America can they get away with this theft. Because we are all FORCED to participate !!

Edited December 16, 2024 by pubic_assistance
grammar

[+ José Soplanucas]

I do not think we understand what is going on here. I know I do not. We have teens killing themselves, teens rooting for other teens to kill themselves, parents who cannot control their children, vigilantes patrolling the streets, facts do not exist anymore, when we debate we do not try to understand the other but to destroy the other, truth has no value as instead what ever our tribe defends becomes truth, a privileged guy executes another privileged guy and the majority reacts cheering the killing and asking for the killer freedom, the list can go on and on and on. And this is not only the US, but I also see it at least in Argentina and Brazil.

But we still pretend to understand and still root for our decades/centuries long beliefs like we know what is going on. 

I am fascinated at the reaction at Luigi's act, and thrilled at whatever is coming because I am always thrilled at radical change. But I am pessimistic about the direction this radical change is heading. And sometimes I am afraid that some day a student who perceived I did not treat them fairly or their relatives may attack me when I do not expect it. 

That is what I meant for disintegration and anomia. I do not think it is fruitful to look for scapegoats and assign responsibilities and guilt, or to continue to try to understand reality from the same frame we are used to. I do think that our technology changed faster than our culture, and the process to make the necessaries adjustments is not going to be nice. 

[+ José Soplanucas]

Hiedi Handford (@happinessinlifetoday) • Instagram photo

WWW.INSTAGRAM.COM

---

0 likes, 0 comments - happinessinlifetoday on December 12, 2024: "“If third graders can get used to the constant threat of murder, so can you!” Let that...

 

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

15 hours ago, ApexNomad said:

...comprehensive reform would require tackling these systemic inefficiencies and misaligned incentives to create a system that prioritizes prevention, affordability, and equitable access for everyone.

In such a system, the alleged assassin would still be denied further surgery.  He had his surgery.  Move on to the next.

[marylander1940]

10 hours ago, BSR said:

I never understood this argument, nor do I agree.  Food isn't a fundamental right, clothing isn't a fundamental right, housing isn't a fundamental right, no other human need is a fundamental right.  Yet so many believe that healthcare is.

I think healthcare is a right, and also a responsibility.

We all should contribute and help each other when we need it, whether is a car accident, cancer, etc.  sooner or later, we'll need to go to the ER/Doctor for different reasons and no one should be kicked out. 

We must also be responsible! Many health issues in this country are connected to our lack of responsibility when it comes to obesity, diabetes, drug addiction, HIV, etc. 

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

11 hours ago, ApexNomad said:

Food, clothing, and housing are also fundamental needs, and while no one is suggesting they must all be provided for free, we do acknowledge a collective responsibility to ensure people don’t starve or freeze.

Many disagree, including me.  If someone is physically able to work and chooses not to, then many believe there is no collective responsibility to keep him fed or warm.

The assassin also had a fundamental right to carry a firearm; but, it is not my responsibility to purchase it for him.

Edited December 16, 2024 by Vegas_Millennial

[Cooper]

Administrator’s Message

Gentlemen,

I think this is a good time to remind you to stay on topic and avoid political issues about government run health plans and gun rights. 

Thanks

[dutchal]

Mangione has hired a New York attorney, who is the wife of Sean Diddy's attorney.  Waiver of extradition is now expected as early as tomorrow.

https://www.npr.org/2024/12/14/nx-s1-5229022/luigi-mangione-defense-lawyer-karen-agnifilo

https://nypost.com/2024/12/14/us-news/luigi-mangione-and-sean-diddy-combs-lawyers-are-married/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/unitedhealthcare-ceo-killing-latest-luigi-mangione-expected-waive/story?id=116822291

 

 

[Rudynate]

On 12/5/2024 at 7:44 AM, rvwnsd said:

Who contacts the widow shortly after her late husband's murder and requests her reaction? What do they expect her to say?

That said, yes, hanging up the phone would be my first reaction. Perhaps the shock impaired her thinking?

 

They were estranged and living apart.

[Rudynate]

On 12/9/2024 at 6:00 PM, EastCoastBtm said:

I didn't get the 'back' reference earlier.... but this is from his X.com page

 

L5-S1 fusion.