Milk and Cookies
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 330
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I guess the adjuster has issued or otherwise finalized a "claim" or perhaps "settled" a claim.Reddit has nicknamed the shooter "The Adjuster"
My insurance company won't cover that...So you are celebrating the murder of a husband and father because you want to piss off some stranger from the internet that you'll never meet? Maybe talk that one through with a therapist.
And now you have to explain what HIS is….I see you are new here.
JCD is Jump Circle Defense. It came about after a win at HIS, where the crazies circled the wagons around the jump circle for protection, I believe.
The person that posted that originally wrote 99.9%.No said everyone would take it. The very large majority of Americans would not turn down tens of millions a year. You are living in a holier than thou fantasy land if you have convinced yourself of this.
Especially if you have United Healthcare.My insurance company won't cover that...
They don't have it or they would've already been broadcasting it 24/7Apparently they have his name. They aren’t releasing it yet however.
Some of the responses I've seen/heard are concerning. Some are kind of humorous. Something along the lines of "Sending thoughts and deductibles. Sorry, prayers are out-of-network."Looking at the reddit, twitter comments ("eat the rich", etc.), it certainly would be a way to further divide American society.
Yeah that’s kinda my thought too but they basically said they weren’t releasing it to not compromise the hunt.They don't have it or they would've already been broadcasting it 24/7
I posted a thread on this. Care to contribute and bring these thoughts over there so as to not derail this one? I disagree with you about for profit insurance, btw.The way out is to stop for profit insurance
Zero else
This is a bad thing? I would think we would all want premiums as low as possible. That doesn't mean "deny every second claim so that people are paying not very much money for insurance that is worth even less" but it's odd to see this described as a negative.to control premium prices.
The high cost of health care in the USA compared to Canada and Western European countries is the result of relying on for profit insurers to cover Americans under the age of 65yoI posted a thread on this. Care to contribute and bring these thoughts over there so as to not derail this one? I disagree with you about for profit insurance, btw.
This is false, and I am 100% confident in that assessment. Insurance companies are not the main drivers of high health care costs. They are barely drivers at all. I mean, just look at the claims here:The high cost of health care in the USA compared to Canada and Western European countries is the result of relying on for profit insurers to cover Americans under the age of 65yo
I think you misunderstood my point.This is a bad thing? I would think we would all want premiums as low as possible. That doesn't mean "deny every second claim so that people are paying not very much money for insurance that is worth even less" but it's odd to see this described as a negative.
What about liability and resultant malpractice insurance as a cost driver (a la John Edwards)This is false, and I am 100% confident in that assessment. Insurance companies are not the main drivers of high health care costs. They are barely drivers at all. I mean, just look at the claims here:
1. For profit insurers deny claims too often and people die as a result;
2. For profit insurers are causing medical care to be too expensive.
These are contradictory statements. The only way that both can be true is for the effects to be quite small. And indeed, for-profit insurance's effects on overall costs is small. Administrative costs traceable to for-profit insurance adds maybe 5-7% of overall cost, at most (and that's before accounting for any savings generated).
A much more important source of administrative costs comes from the problems of a) the ridiculous inefficiency and non-interoperable EMR systems and b) procedure coding. So much money is spent in implementing EMRs that suck, so then they have to be replaced, and some companies build their own, which still suck, and nobody can talk to each other. And then physician practices spend a lot of time upcoding procedures to maximize reimbursements, and then the insurers want to fight against upcoding, so we get appeals processes, etc.
Neither of those categories of costs is traceable to for-profit insurance. I won't say that for-profit insurance doesn't in some cases aggravate them -- I wouldn't really know either way. But upcoding is a direct result of how Medicare reimbursements work, and I do not think a private insurance system would continue to use this technique if the entire field wasn't built around it. And I don't even know what to say about EMRs, the suckiness of which is almost incomprehensible to me, except that it seems to be a provider thing, and in particular large providers like hospitals.
To a first approximation, this has no impact. Malpractice insurance doesn't affect prices, for a number of reasons (including that it's not a variable cost).What about liability and resultant malpractice insurance as a cost driver (a la John Edwards)