Hacker News Reader

Comment by JohnTHaller | Hacker News Reader

The goal of their insurance company is to make a large return for their shareholders. And, thus, a large bonus for the C-suite execs. Their goal is not to provide care.

In this particular instance, the insurance company saved money to give to shareholders and their C-suite by not treating the patient further. They lose no money by allowing him to die.

This is all by design.

View on HN

I wish that rather than the closed govt medical programs we have... we simply funded a public, non-profit health insurance provider that is motivated by fiduciary responsibility, but not profit driven. While this may seem heartless as some would fall through the cracks, such as cases like tfa that wouldn't be covered, at least there would be more competition against the private insurance companies.

I'm not a fan of fully socializing medicine, but having a non-profit with negotiating power in the mix could only help.

Yes, that's what people are referring to when they say "wrong".

This happens with (theoretically) non-profit insurers, too. Like the BCBS networks.

I nominally agree with this sentiment. BCBS does have issues like this happen, but not at the same level others, in my experience.

Anecdotally though, I've found that my current insurer (United) denies and delays care far, far, more often than when I had a similar plan with BCBS. And I'm not talking about small bills, my son was in the NICU for 41 days, at a cost of ~$150,000. Through BCBS I paid like a grand of that. United denies the most random things, a referral to a specialist, meds for on brand usage while they'll pay for other meds that are off brand, for instance.

I do have a platinum level plan, I am _extremely_ lucky to have this. I know the vast majority of Americans, most of my friends and family, fight with their insurance companies for far less than my complaints.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com