By Stacey Warde
I do not endorse murder or assassinations of any kind, yet it doesn’t surprise me that Brian Thompson, murdered CEO of one of the country’s most profitable health insurance companies, became a target.
Who knows why? I sure don’t but I have some ideas.
His murder has helped to unleash the fury of Americans denied life-or-death medical care recommended by their physicians. Denied as a matter of health insurance policies shaped by profit seekers like Mr. Thompson. He oversaw profits approaching the ridiculous when you consider the losses in human life and decency. And his cohorts don’t seem much to care how their leadership maximizing and turning profits for shareholders impacts patients the profitable group presumably covers.
As we’ve learned in recent reports, more than one insured of United suffered pain and/or death as a consequence of for-profit policies endorsed by Mr. Thompson. Profit seeking, in my view, works fine in other industries, EXCEPT healthcare.
I am glad for the outrage but wonder how far it will go in a culture bewitched by wealth, where profit means more than a person’s life, and I’m saddened by the fact that anyone must die for greed, profits, or revenge.
I do not support industries that profit from another’s suffering, pain, or death. I also do not support a healthcare industry that relies on bloodletting to survive.
I believe a universal healthcare system is in order. Call it “socialism,” or whatever you want, it’s the right thing to do.
Meanwhile, I’ve taken my concerns to artificial intelligence, today’s latest fashionable god and oracle, for feedback:
Me: Why is the death of a patient as a result of a denied health insurance claim not considered murder?
AI: The complex interplay between intent, causation, and corporate liability
While it may seem morally reprehensible for an insurance company to deny a claim that could lead to a patient’s death, there are several legal reasons why this isn’t typically considered murder:
* Intent: Murder, in most legal systems, requires a specific intent to kill. Insurance companies, while often motivated by profit, typically don’t have the direct intention to cause harm or death.
[Cynical Me, thinking: That’s debatable.]
* Causation: Proving direct causation between a denied claim and a patient’s death can be extremely difficult. Many factors, such as underlying health conditions or other medical treatments, can contribute to a patient’s demise.
* Corporate Liability: While corporations can be held liable for negligent or harmful actions, the specific individuals within the company who make decisions about claims are typically not held personally responsible for the consequences of those decisions, unless extreme negligence or malice can be proven.
However, it’s important to note that this doesn’t absolve insurance companies of all responsibility.
In many cases, patients and their families can pursue legal action against insurance companies for wrongful denial of claims, especially if it can be shown that the denial was based on a clear violation of policy terms or medical necessity.
It’s also worth noting that public outcry and increased regulatory scrutiny have led to reforms in the insurance industry, aiming to reduce unnecessary claim denials and improve patient care.
Me: Who’s responsible when a patient dies as a consequence of a denied health insurance claim?
AI: The complex issue of liability when a patient dies due to a denied health insurance claim is a multifaceted one, often involving multiple parties and legal considerations.
While it’s difficult to provide a definitive answer without specific details about the case, here are some potential factors that could influence liability:
1. The Insurer:
* Breach of Contract: If the insurer fails to fulfill its contractual obligations, such as denying a claim without a valid reason or delaying necessary approvals, it could be held liable.
* Bad Faith: In some cases, insurers may be accused of acting in bad faith, which involves intentional or reckless disregard for the insured’s rights. This can lead to significant legal consequences, including punitive damages.
2. The Healthcare Provider:
* Medical Malpractice: If the healthcare provider made errors in diagnosis, treatment, or care, they could be held liable for medical malpractice.
* Failure to Advocate: In some cases, healthcare providers may not adequately advocate for their patients with insurance companies, which could contribute to delayed or denied care.
3. The Patient:
* Failure to Appeal: If the patient fails to appeal a denied claim, it may limit their legal options. However, this is often a complex process, and patients may need legal assistance to navigate it effectively.
Legal Recourse:
If a patient dies as a result of a denied claim, their family may have legal options, such as:
* Civil Lawsuit: A lawsuit against the insurer or healthcare provider for negligence, breach of contract, or other relevant claims.
* Regulatory Complaints: Filing complaints with state insurance departments or other regulatory agencies.
* Class-Action Lawsuits: In some cases, multiple individuals may join together to file a class-action lawsuit against an insurer for systemic issues.
It’s crucial to consult with an attorney to understand the specific legal rights and options available in a particular case.
Please note that this information is intended to provide general knowledge and does not constitute legal advice.
Me: Is insurance a protection racket?
AI: No, insurance is not a protection racket. Here’s why:
* Voluntary: Individuals are coerced into paying for protection, insurance is a voluntary agreement. You choose to purchase a policy to protect yourself against specific risks.
* Risk Pooling: Insurance companies pool the premiums of many policyholders to pay claims. This spreads the risk and allows for financial protection for everyone.
* Regulated Industry: Insurance companies are heavily regulated by state and federal governments to ensure fair practices and consumer protection.
* Contractual Obligation: When you purchase insurance, you enter into a legally binding contract with the insurer. They are obligated to fulfill their part of the agreement if you need to file a claim.
While some people may criticize certain aspects of the insurance industry, such as high premiums or denied claims, these issues do not equate to the definition of a protection racket.
Me: It seems to me that requiring drivers to insure themselves, for example, is a type of coercion.
AI: You’re absolutely right. Requiring drivers to carry insurance can indeed be seen as a form of coercion. It’s a government mandate that restricts individual freedom of choice.
However, it’s important to consider the rationale behind such regulations.
Governments often implement these laws to:
* Protect the Public: By ensuring that drivers have financial responsibility, governments aim to protect innocent victims of accidents from significant financial burdens.
* Maintain Road Safety: The knowledge that one could be held financially liable for accidents can incentivize safer driving behaviors.
* Promote Social Equity: By spreading the risk across a larger pool of drivers, insurance can help mitigate the impact of accidents on individuals who may not be able to afford significant medical or property damage costs.
While it’s a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides, the primary goal of mandatory insurance is to create a safer and fairer road environment for all.
Me: Wouldn’t universal healthcare be a better option?
AI: Yes, universal healthcare is a compelling option. Many countries have successfully implemented universal healthcare systems, providing comprehensive coverage to all citizens. Here are some potential benefits:
* Improved Health Outcomes: Universal healthcare can lead to better health outcomes by ensuring that everyone has access to necessary care, regardless of their income or employment status.
* Reduced Healthcare Costs: By pooling resources and negotiating lower drug prices, universal healthcare systems can often achieve lower overall healthcare costs.
* Increased Productivity: A healthier population can lead to increased productivity and economic growth.
* Reduced Administrative Costs: A single-payer system can simplify the billing and administrative processes, reducing costs for both providers and patients.
However, it’s important to note that implementing universal healthcare is a complex undertaking. There are challenges to consider, such as funding the system, managing healthcare provider shortages, and balancing quality of care with cost-effectiveness.
Ultimately, the decision to adopt universal healthcare is a political one that involves weighing the potential benefits against the costs and challenges.
Stacey Warde seeks a more just healthcare system in the US. This article first appeared on Medium, where Stacey’s longform essays are published. For shorter items, visit Abusive Elder on Substack.
