Do a search for 'UnitedHealth uses faulty AI to deny elderly patients' and see what comes up.
I'm not saying this is deserved, more that I'm surprised it's taken this long for someone to just up and execute an insurance CEO.
I'm not saying this is deserved, more that I'm surprised it's taken this long for someone to just up and execute an insurance CEO.
https://www.propublica.org/article/evicore-health-insurance-...
Probably relevant
Since they will all be increasing their rates soon to cover the expenses of 24/7 armed guards, armored vehicles, etc…
Edit: Or a reduction in service quality to cover the new expenses.
> How do they still have that many customers if their service was so bad?
Because the people making the decision to purchase UHC services and using UHC services are two wildly different demographics.
Do they have an effective monopoly in certain States?
Or are you implying the ‘pickers’ get special gold plated services completely different from regular employees?
That money has to come from somewhere, so a cheaper pick means more money available for other things like nicer employee lounges, free drinks, etc…
Unless you were being sarcastic in saying "yeah you're going to die sooner due to our poor healthcare choice, but hey, a free soda*!"
* remote workers get nothing
Besides that, most companies can afford free soda with or without terrible healthcare choices, so it seems totally orthogonal: free soda doesn't require bad healthcare choices and bad healthcare choices don't imply free soda.
It could of course be very delayed or simply be used primarily as pretexts for corporate infighting with a very low probability of such a linkage.
But nonetheless even in the worst case scenario, a very low probability for the median employee is still better than zero probability.
'We could theoretically spend greater than 0% of the savings on something that could be better or worse sometime in the future' isn't good enough on its own, and it's not convincing enough that it will ever happen, and if it does, it doesn't leave me convinced that the money will be spent on something better for me.
> even in the worst case scenario, a very low probability for the median employee is still better than zero probability.
The criteria to use here is, "do employees feel they're better off with the new, terrible healthcare plan, given any free sodas etc they might have received in exchange". If the employees wouldn't have voluntarily made the same choice for themselves, then it was a bad healthcare choice for employees.
Why would they all start behaving like charities?
Edit: I would love to make $20/minute every day finding ways to drive people into medical bankruptcy, despair, and death, just like him, because being rich is awesome. :)