UnitedHealthcare Value Drops $41.6 Billion in Week After CEO Brian Thompson’s Slaying.
UnitedHealthcare Value Drops $41.6 Billion in Week After CEO Brian Thompson’s Slaying.
The nation's biggest health insurance company is worth $520.1 billion after losing 7.5% of its value The post UnitedHealthcare Value Drops $41.6 Billion in Week After CEO Brian Thompson’s Slaying appeared first on TheWrap.
You're viewing a single thread.
Health care insurance should be handled by governments, or alternatively by law by non profit foundations
Some would argue that should be the case for all companies.
Imagine how much better for profit companies would function if they didn't have investors skimming off their profits.
For profit companies should be illegal.
Have you ever worked in government?
Getting the simplest shit done takes forever.
By contrast, getting things done in a private company is quick as hell by comparison.
I wouldn’t say government bodies “function better” in my experience.
All that said, healthcare is one thing I’d definitely like to see handled by the gov rather than privatized.
I said nonprofit. NGO. As in non government organization.
Sorry. I misattributed the government piece to you instead of one further comment up.
I can’t say I have any experience with NGOs to make a determination on that for myself.
I do have experience with NGOs. The only issue with them is that capitalism doesn't allow ethical business to thrive.
If for profit companies were outlawed, they'd function much better
You're argument here is quantity over quality - "these people kill a lot of other people with those decisions, sure... but they make those heavy decisions lightly and quickly and often with an algorithm! That FEELS impressive to me because I'm a toddler that responds to kinetic stimulus for the sake of it and I can't see any nuance!"
Also, part of what you're talking about is by design - Republicans shoot their constituents in the feet so those people can then have foot pain to complain about. Then, when complaining gets vocal, the gop politicians come in and say "we need to just get government away from your feet and they'll be less painful" ---- They are the "government" that shot you and you are the constituent with a hole in your foot.
So whine about government being slow some more.
But the quality isn’t good either.
When I worked in government I was surrounded by people who fucking sucked at their jobs. And why try any harder to get better? They were basically un-fireable. They could come in, do jack shit all day, and collect their paycheck.
So, no, it’s not an argument for quantity over quality. In my experience, both are better in private industry.
My experience is based heavily in IT, for context.
However, I do not believe it is the case that private industry is always the answer, as I stated earlier.
Have you ever worked in government?
Yes, and speaking to quality in this case is not about individual performances, it's about overall quality of outcome. Are you familiar with Pareto?
Stop fixating on Janice in accounting scrolling facebook and how you feel slighted by her or Derek in operations who shows up 30 minutes late to meetings. The bigger machine on government side works most of the time, with transparent accountability, on that side, in the case of insurance, it emotionlessly kills people for profit on the other.
I’m focused on outcomes. I just think individual performance contributes to those overall outcomes.
I’ve seen millions in wasted IT equipment that never got used due to incompetence. Old ass equipment that sticks around far past its expiration which turns into an emergency to replace when it finally starts breaking hard.
In my current position I work directly with the US government and I actively try to get them to run more efficiently, reliably and cheaply. They literally don’t give a fuck. It’s like talking to a wall.
I’ve seen far less of that in the private sector.
Also, your fixation here is on pennies and not dollars. Large systems account for waste and allow for less precise action. They do that because they know that enables less logistical slowdown on average and overall they will be more successful in big picture.
As you grow, you'll learn to focus on broad strategy and not get lost in fixation on individual tactics. Set good policy and allow people room within to figure it out - without a bummer of a nag in middle management meandering around trying to save pennies at the cost of dollars to justify their existence.
I don’t appreciate the insinuation that I’m just too young to understand or too early in my career to know better.
Just this morning I was on a meeting where the gov side brought up the fact that that needed to do X. I immediately found them documentation on how to do X. Simple and straightforward.
They later put in a case asking how to do what I already provided them documentation on.
That’s a microcosm of what I’m talking about. That kind of incompetence is pervasive in government in my experience.
Is it a part of some grand strategy to waste time and energy in this way? Give me a fucking break.
For profit companies is capitalism and like it or not, it is by far the most successful way of doing things. It's so successful bthst it isn't even a contest.
What you need it capitalism with a boat load of restrictions to keep it fair. Restrict companies in size and revenue. Get to 5000 employees? That's it, you can't hire anymore. Get to X amount of yearly revenue? Taxes on anything above that gonto 100%. Companies cannot buy other companies. Limit what can be invested and how. Limit the powers of special interest groups created by companies. This way there will not be one big player, companies will actually have to compete. You get the power of capitalism without the bad parts. Now use the proceedings of that power capital to fund a good socialist framework that gives free education, free healthcare for all, free minimums like housing, food, etc.
What's your fitness function for "success"? Killing all life on earth? Then, yes, I'd agree with you.
But if your fitness function is "to deliver necessary goods and services to customers to satisfy their needs without causing mass extinction", then--no--capitalism isn't very successful
Usually, things handled by governments suck in orthogonal ways to private companies. Private companies suck due to greed. State owned stuff sucks due to incompetence.
Where I live, we have a state owned insurance company, but others are allowed to compete with it. Optimistically, they competing with each other making all of them better. Pessimistically, you choose the one that sucks least from your point of view. Either way, better than any proposed alternative.
Right. Because healthcare in other countries like Canada, the UK, and European countries are so terribly run compared to US healthcare.
terribly run compared to US healthcare.
So you are afraid of it being too good? Sure, most countries are better than the US...
European countries
I am literally explaining how it works in some European countries.
I agree with you, but I see it as governments should make the rules, based off what science tells them is best, companies themln implement those rules.
The US government needs to add a shit tonne of rules for companies to stop the unchecked growth and abuse and if it would do that, life would get better for everyone.
Unfortunately we now have trump so if you live in the US then you have my sympathies. Or actually, you don't. You failed and got trump tonshit over the entire world, so you don't have my sympathies. You should have stopped him
Again, I explicitly stated I live in a country where we have a government run insurance company in addition to private ones. People can register with whichever they like and send to paperwork to their employer, who pays their insurance (or government if unemployed).
Of course, what they have to cover at minimum is also heavily regulated.
As for other types of companies and rules, that is a long and nuanced discussion that is off-topic here.