Murdered Insurance CEO Had Deployed an AI to Automatically Deny Benefits for Sick People - easy come easy go


Just over a year before United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was murdered this week in Midtown Manhattan, a lawsuit filed against the insurance giant he helmed revealed just how draconian its claims-denying process had become.

Last November, the estates of two former UHC patients filed suit in Minnesota alleging that the insurer used an AI algorithm to deny and override claims to elderly patients that had been approved by their doctors.

The algorithm in question, known as nH Predict, allegedly had a 90 percent error rate — and according to the families of the two deceased men who filed the suit, UHC knew it.

As that lawsuit made its way through the courts, anger regarding the massive insurer's predilection towards denying claims has only grown, and speculation about the assassin's motives suggests that he may have been among those upset with UHC's coverage.

Though we don't yet know the identity of the person who shot Thompson nor his reasoning, reports claim that he wrote the words "deny," "defend," and "depose" on the shell casing of the bullets used to shoot the CEO — a message that makes it sound a lot like the killer was aggrieved against the insurance industry's aggressive denials of coverage to sick patients.

Beyond the shooter's own motives, it's clear from the shockingly celebratory reaction online to Thompson's murder that anger about the American insurance and healthcare system has reached the point of literal bloodlust.

As The American Prospect so aptly put it, "only about 50 million customers of America’s reigning medical monopoly might have a motive to exact revenge upon the UnitedHealthcare CEO."
 
declare him guilty anyway
they would likely either hound him for petty process crimes or throw the book at him when they catch him on some petty technicality like jaywalking years later. either way the family of this ceo will be anal raping him in civil court for a million billion dollars because civil court is retarded.
 
Maybe killing CEOs and executives is okay.
This was the foundation of an wonderful environmentalist group from the 60s called ATWA (air, trees, water, animals). Offer the owners of the 75 most polluting companies a chance to leave before they were killed.

You may have heard of their founder. Charles Manson.
 
An AI never has moral qualms about denying claims. The AI will never complain. The AI will never commiserate with coworkers about how unethical this all is. The AI will never whistleblower to the government, media or the public. It will just do what it was designed to do.

This is the true AI horror story. An AI with no moral compass or feelings of guilt.
Hahaha. Remember Prometheus. "David can carry out instructions that humans would find... unethical, or distressing."
 
Evil utter bullshit like this and the big brain idea in some states that allow it, to require payment in full before doing medical procedures, just moves us closer and closer, faster and faster to a nightmare single payer/completely socialized medical system scenario. Even without such nonsense it isn't likely to be enough.

As i said in the main thread about his murder:

Health care is something i've changed my already 50/50 stance on even more over the last ~decade or so. (even before covid) While forcing all aspects out of a "for profit" position would be costly, and in the short-to-medium likely dangerous. I feel like we need some new 3rd way with it. Health care should not be something that people beyond the individual (working in the industry) level should ever be expected, if not allowed, to make profit on.. and certainly not on a publicly traded corporate or investor level. Maybe something like a for (reasonable) profit trust or something. I've also gone completely 'universal basic coverage'.. at least until costs are brought down. (through education, civil law and other reforms. Also putting a stop to efforts at preventing the government from negotiating prices and such should help too.. combined with an industry wide cost transparency law) I actually see it as not just the ethical and moral thing to do, but the sane and logical one from the standpoint of heading off a single payer or completely socialized nightmare down the road. (one of the many examples of our ruinous current market and economic ideology leading us right into the hands of socialists and leftist in general)
 
[PICTURES]
"Sorry, we can't tell you why we denied the claim. It's confidential."
Insanity.
For now. Getting to close to a Shadowrun like reality for my comfort.
Geeking a AA rated corporate CEO in broad daylight with engraved bullet casings and escaping without being caught is very Pink Mohawk, Chummer.
 
Just a wild guess… If the health insurers just paid out each claim instead of going: “Maybe Stacy doesn’t need to have her tits chopped up”, you guys would be super happy about the higher premiums, right?

It’s not rocket science: The more claims they pay, the higher your premiums will be.
 
Just a wild guess… If the health insurers just paid out each claim instead of going: “Maybe Stacy doesn’t need to have her tits chopped up”, you guys would be super happy about the higher premiums, right?

It’s not rocket science: The more claims they pay, the higher your premiums will be.
Sucking the cock of the health insurance industry won't get your claim approved.
 
Just a wild guess… If the health insurers just paid out each claim instead of going: “Maybe Stacy doesn’t need to have her tits chopped up”, you guys would be super happy about the higher premiums, right?

It’s not rocket science: The more claims they pay, the higher your premiums will be.
Well yeah because it means your claims get processed. Right now you’re just throwing money down a black hole. At least with a Ponzi scheme you get the rush of potentially getting something from it. To give them tens into hundreds of thousands of dollars over your lifetime and when you need them once they tell you to get fucked, well, easy to see why most people are not shedding tears at this guy getting killed. Basically when people need these people the most, they say “nah lol.”
 
Just a wild guess… If the health insurers just paid out each claim instead of going: “Maybe Stacy doesn’t need to have her tits chopped up”, you guys would be super happy about the higher premiums, right?

It’s not rocket science: The more claims they pay, the higher your premiums will be.
Yes we shouldn't blame the $90b-a-year conglomerate built on taking people's money and then having an malfunctioning AI tell them to fuck off and die instead of providing anything in return, we should blame the trannies.
 
Just a wild guess… If the health insurers just paid out each claim instead of going: “Maybe Stacy doesn’t need to have her tits chopped up”, you guys would be super happy about the higher premiums, right?

It’s not rocket science: The more claims they pay, the higher your premiums will be.
Nice false equivalency, fuckhead.
 
Sucking the cock of the health insurance industry won't get your claim approved.
So that’s a no I take it.
Nice false equivalency, fuckhead.
It’s not though. Insurances deny claims not because it’s fun but because they SAVE MONEY.

Lower payouts mean lower premiums.

It’s not rocket science.

And don’t start on some libtard “HURR DURR evil capitalists and profit margins!” Because their profit margins are legislated to be be small. Around 5%.
Yes we shouldn't blame the $90b-a-year conglomerate built on taking people's money and then having an malfunctioning AI tell them to fuck off and die instead of providing anything in return, we should blame the trannies.
Among other things of course. Permanent hormones and 200.000$ unnecessary surgeries they HAVE to cover by law. Who pays for it. That’s right: The people paying premiums.
 
It’s not though. Insurances deny claims not because it’s fun but because they SAVE MONEY.

Lower payouts mean lower premiums.

It’s not rocket science.
5% of billions is still a lot of money.
Yes they deny claims to save money, but if your policy says you’re covered for something, your doctor says it is valid and then they deny it, that’s both morally wrong and a breach of the contract. There should be transparency throughout.
And all the gender crap should not be covered by insurance either. And they shouldn’t be paying the bills of illegals who enter the country and need medical care. We also have a big problem with medical tourism in the nhs and there seems to be no will to solve it even though it’s not that hard to solve.

Medical care is like all these similar systems - they work great when you have a high functioning, high trust society with a certain ratio of net contributors to net takers. When you open the doors and let anyone use it for free it collapses. The addition of a middleman also rarely makes any system better.
 
And don’t start on some libtard “HURR DURR evil capitalists and profit margins!” Because their profit margins are legislated to be be small. Around 5%.
I no longer believe any industry that bitches about "muh razor thin profit margins". They'd be saying that shit even if they were making 3000%.
 
Permanent hormones and 200.000$ unnecessary surgeries they HAVE to cover by law.
Nobody gives a shit about their premiums going up maybe a few dollars a year because trannies are getting coverage. People are furious that after paying the agreed-on premiums year after year, the company still tells them to go fuck themselves if they ever get sick, and then dares them to go hire a lawyer on their deathbed to try and fight them for what they're owed.
 
Back