I would bet that once the murderer is identified, he will be found to be someone whose loved one died after United Healthcare denied a claim. I think this is so likely that it could help identify him - if they search their records for such cases they could probably use it to find a list of potential suspects.
I have often wondered what insurance companies’ motive is for covering so-called gender affirming care, which is essentially cosmetic surgery. They don’t cover nose jobs, no matter how distressed a person might be at the appearance of their nose. In a time when they are denying coverage for all kinds of necessary procedures, why do the insurance companies seem to be working against their own interests by covering gender medicine, no questions asked?
My mom just had to wait six months for surgery for a kidney stone due to fighting with her insurance company over coverage, when it was obviously medically necessary. The really cynical part of me believes that they know that if they delay procedures for people in their 70s by tying it up with red tape and paperwork, some percentage of those people will die before getting surgery, and so the delays are by design. And while people don’t generally die directly from a kidney stone so they can’t be held legally liable for ill effects on her health, my mom’s health couldn’t really afford six months of constant pain, blood loss, and lack of mobility and muscle loss due to the pain she was in.
I'm not sure I understand the use of the word 'hypocrisy' in this piece. Everyone might need anesthesia at some point; not everyone needs gender-affirming care. These seem like largely unrelated types of coverage, and Anthem's stand on one doesn't mean it is inconsistent about the other.
I get the last sentence in this piece, though — that's a good point.
Is gender-affirming care a standard coverage Anthem offers to all its customers — such as those who sign up on exchanges under the Affordable Care Act? Or is it something it only offers to companies like Edward Jones that want this kind of coverage for their employees? I worked for a company that self-insured its health coverage. The coverage was managed by one of the big insurance companies, but it was not an off-the-shelf policy.
I tried, without success, to get copies of insurance policies from other Fortune 500 companies, to compare the coverage to determine whether the transgender coverage was standard for progressive, large firms, or whether it was a one off from Edward Jones
Also interesting Substacks by Jeff Childers yesterday in his Coffee and Covid post concerning the normalization of mask wearing and John Leake who has written several pieces about who the murderer might be and the clues he left behind.
Don't pretend that it's possible to be anti-so-called 'stupid' govt regulation and pro-regulating health insurance companies at the same time. Anti-govt regulation is a major, if not the major, reason why the health insurance industry has defeated at least 40 years of regular efforts to improve health service availability for American people. You can't have it both ways. Either people accept the importance of govt regulation and work to really understand regulations and how to improve them OR people rant nonsense about stupid govt, big taxes (that pay for most of roads, air traffic control, health professionals training, vital research, etc etc)
Gerald, thank you for clarifying many of the danglers out there. It’s truly reprehensible where the healthcare industry is heading. Anesthesia or gender affirming care? One is required for surgeries. The other of course is not. Keep following the money trail! 👍
But… the DEI-like approval of gender affirming care affects placates a tiny portion of the population. It probably costs the insurance company a minuscule amount of $ when compared to the massive number of automatic denials of claims.
Bottom line; violence and murder is never acceptable but there is a simmering hatred for insurance company practices in this country and only federal regulations (which I generally abhor) will stop the unethical practices. For goodness sakes we’ve got stupid government refs on everything from snail darter protection to nutrition guidelines —- I’d say Regulation of the health insurance industry is more important.
Unbelievable! The whole healthcare industry needs a massive shakeup.
It's not hypocracy if the aim is the bottom line. Political posture is part of that.
I would bet that once the murderer is identified, he will be found to be someone whose loved one died after United Healthcare denied a claim. I think this is so likely that it could help identify him - if they search their records for such cases they could probably use it to find a list of potential suspects.
I have often wondered what insurance companies’ motive is for covering so-called gender affirming care, which is essentially cosmetic surgery. They don’t cover nose jobs, no matter how distressed a person might be at the appearance of their nose. In a time when they are denying coverage for all kinds of necessary procedures, why do the insurance companies seem to be working against their own interests by covering gender medicine, no questions asked?
My mom just had to wait six months for surgery for a kidney stone due to fighting with her insurance company over coverage, when it was obviously medically necessary. The really cynical part of me believes that they know that if they delay procedures for people in their 70s by tying it up with red tape and paperwork, some percentage of those people will die before getting surgery, and so the delays are by design. And while people don’t generally die directly from a kidney stone so they can’t be held legally liable for ill effects on her health, my mom’s health couldn’t really afford six months of constant pain, blood loss, and lack of mobility and muscle loss due to the pain she was in.
I'm not sure I understand the use of the word 'hypocrisy' in this piece. Everyone might need anesthesia at some point; not everyone needs gender-affirming care. These seem like largely unrelated types of coverage, and Anthem's stand on one doesn't mean it is inconsistent about the other.
I get the last sentence in this piece, though — that's a good point.
Is gender-affirming care a standard coverage Anthem offers to all its customers — such as those who sign up on exchanges under the Affordable Care Act? Or is it something it only offers to companies like Edward Jones that want this kind of coverage for their employees? I worked for a company that self-insured its health coverage. The coverage was managed by one of the big insurance companies, but it was not an off-the-shelf policy.
I tried, without success, to get copies of insurance policies from other Fortune 500 companies, to compare the coverage to determine whether the transgender coverage was standard for progressive, large firms, or whether it was a one off from Edward Jones
Matt Stoller writes a Substack about monopolies. Friday's is about the murder, and it is not behind a paywall. Highly recommended to all.
Also interesting Substacks by Jeff Childers yesterday in his Coffee and Covid post concerning the normalization of mask wearing and John Leake who has written several pieces about who the murderer might be and the clues he left behind.
Thank you. That sounds interesting.
Don't pretend that it's possible to be anti-so-called 'stupid' govt regulation and pro-regulating health insurance companies at the same time. Anti-govt regulation is a major, if not the major, reason why the health insurance industry has defeated at least 40 years of regular efforts to improve health service availability for American people. You can't have it both ways. Either people accept the importance of govt regulation and work to really understand regulations and how to improve them OR people rant nonsense about stupid govt, big taxes (that pay for most of roads, air traffic control, health professionals training, vital research, etc etc)
Gerald, thank you for clarifying many of the danglers out there. It’s truly reprehensible where the healthcare industry is heading. Anesthesia or gender affirming care? One is required for surgeries. The other of course is not. Keep following the money trail! 👍
But… the DEI-like approval of gender affirming care affects placates a tiny portion of the population. It probably costs the insurance company a minuscule amount of $ when compared to the massive number of automatic denials of claims.
Bottom line; violence and murder is never acceptable but there is a simmering hatred for insurance company practices in this country and only federal regulations (which I generally abhor) will stop the unethical practices. For goodness sakes we’ve got stupid government refs on everything from snail darter protection to nutrition guidelines —- I’d say Regulation of the health insurance industry is more important.