You know, at face value he's absolutely right. We shouldn't claim care that is unnecessary or maybe even harmful. But where we disagree is that I think that decision should be left to our medical professionals
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
803 points (99.3% liked)
memes
10667 readers
2126 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Really what it should be is that if a doctor prescribes unnecessary care, they should go after the doctor, not the patient. Doctors have malpractice insurance. If the health insurance can't win a case of malpractice, then they should pay the bill. Why are patients in the midfle here at all.
This is still validating the profit incentive of private health insurance.
If the doctor prescribes unnecessary care, it should be none of these peoples' business, because they shouldn't be allowed any stake in the decision whatsoever.
It’s the same trick as rebranding bank robberies to identity theft. It puts the blame on the consumer who can’t afford to defend themselves.
Really what it should be is that if a doctor prescribes unnecessary care
That's the core problem. The entity that defines unnecessary care is health insurance. And there are TONS of stories of them denying Diabetes medication for people with diabetes and anti-nausea meds to pediatric patients getting chemo.
If they were doing the right thing, no one would be pissed off. The "recent target" was the one to decided to run on AI driven denials that were denying 90% of care for months.
They are not fulfilling their duty to take the money from the subscribers and pay their righteous medical bills and instead using it as raw profit.
They are employing their own 'doctors' to prove stuff that is definitely necessary is labeled unnecessary.
Reminds me of the Tobacco Instrustry setting up the "Tobacco Institute", to disprove any links between smoking being addictive, and lung cancer.
They were constantly gaslighting the public, even tried to discredit the Surgeon General for his report on second hand smoke.
load more comments
(2 replies)
My attitude is that if the doctor prescribes unnecessary care there's a professional board for that.
Though let's be real, the health insurance for profit industry is the problem and it's not going to get better until we get rid of it
load more comments
(1 replies)
Patients usually have the least amount of power. That's why.
load more comments
(18 replies)
I win! Whoosanext?
I miss Anonymous. Those fuckers would be figuratively burning down UHC right now.
What actually happened to them? Did key members get tracked down or something?
I don't have sources, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the OGs aged out or got caught, and the new gen that replaced them weren't as ideologically driven or competent or something. I think they still technically exist but aren't nearly as influential as they once were
It's also not as easy to hack electronic systems anymore. It's not that they are invulnerable, but the vulnerabilities are generally more complicated and difficult to exploit. Setting aside people still running Windows XP or something, vulnerabilities get patched pretty quickly today. State actors have the time and resources to still do straight up electronic hacking, but opportunities for individuals are sparse.
Of course there is still the human element. Most data breaches done by individuals nowadays rely, at least in part, on social engineering.
Another thought this just popped into my head is that the next generation may not have been brought up with the same fundamental hacking skills that were somewhat inherent in being technical in the late 70s-mid 90s. Could you still learn them?…Of course, but having grown up with BBSs and LoD (Legion of Doom, and the like) and pre-WWW, some things were just more prevalent when it came to learning about the guts of systems and “cybersecurity” (that word didn’t really exist back then).
On the other hand, learning hacking itself is easier than ever. It's turned legitimate under the guise of penetration testing.
I think they all just got jobs, honestly.
In this economy?!?! /s…kinda
Actually that makes sense, and saddens me a bit there wasn’t a contingent to pass the torch to.
load more comments
(1 replies)
they were taken down and then turned into a shell org of the NSA.
it's a honeypot/scapegoat now.
What did you expect?
We've been told for years that herp derp the economy is doing amazing! If you don't agree there's something wrong with you! if you got laid off or your corpo landlord raised your rent and you're now dying in the street well then... look everybody! An evil homeless person lowering your property values with their continued existence! Git em!
So he's suicidal?
More like, disconnected from reality.
Poh-tay-toh tuh-mah-toh
Did he not have a PR person tell him that video was a bad idea? Or more likely, did he not listen to their advice?
They simply don't care. What are you going to do? Shoot them?
Headline says video was leaked. It was probably a private meeting. Agree that it was a stupid thing to say regardless.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's time for that green guy from that one video game that I can't mention because the auto mods are erasing free speech
Did that guy just paint a big ol' target on himself?
load more comments
(1 replies)
I feel like health insurance companies are putting a lot of pressure on people named Mario right now.
Can we gamble on how long they have left?
That'd be some good old fashioned capitalism.
load more comments
(2 replies)
So many internet arguments revolve around binary choices that don’t need to be binary or appeals to authority or hypocrisy as the only leg they stand on.
view more: next ›