Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
If your point is that insurers are not murderers, then I'm happy to consider it proved. Otherwise, your point is well... dumb.Yup, as if to prove my ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ point for me. Thank you.
If your point is that insurers are not murderers, then I'm happy to consider it proved. Otherwise, your point is well... dumb.Yup, as if to prove my ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ point for me. Thank you.
You literally gave an example of a guy who didn't get his claim denied and didn't get killed by UHI, in response to a request for evidence of UHI killing people by denying their claims.Oh, he didn't die. Ok, cool. Have a good day
This isn't a technicality. This is an absolute failure to support your claim. In fact the failure is so absolute that you ended up doing the opposite of support your claim. You're currently at the point of saying this guy got assassinated because one time his company offered their customer a colonoscopy every five years instead of every three years. If that's the best you have, then I agree you should have stuck with your first instinct and not engaged.I don't have any want or desire to engage. I should have shut up previously, and I'm not going down the "wUlL tEChniCAllY" road.
This isn't a technicality. This is an absolute failure to support your claim. In fact the failure is so absolute that you ended up doing the opposite of support your claim. You're currently at the point of saying this guy got assassinated because one time his company offered their customer a colonoscopy every five years instead of every three years. If that's the best you have, then I agree you should have stuck with your first instinct and not engaged.
So... ACA plans are required to report denial and appeal rates, as well as reason categories, as part of the transparency regulations.How about a federal web site showing the states, the insurance companies doing business therein, and their initial claims denial rate?
Getting the data would likely require federal legislation promising severe fines for failing to provide it, or making false claims. That's not going to happen under Trump, but perhaps the Democrats can start planning it now.
I didn't claim their approval rates so no reason to defend them. And yes, I've read the filing, and the only substantive response from UHC. I'm not sure if you have, if you understand it, or if we just fundamentally won't view the information the same.Yet you guys are relying on the company's word saying they're paying out x% of claims without any issue at all. If you can't rely on unprovided information and belief, what can you rely on eh? Have you read through UHC's court filings? You should. Have you read about the AI they're using and how it's determining how long UHC is paying for customer care? You should. It's something alright.
Again, they have to provide their reasons by law. I guarentee they were provided the reasoning because it is in the filing. And here is probably where we will disagree. For Lokken, the medicare outlined justification for continued care in that facility wasnt met.Yeah, that's what the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ lawsuit is about buddy. UHC isn't providing the details on how they reached their decision. It's all laid out in the lawsuit, anyone can read it. When customers ask they say it's confidential.
I hope you don't have any issues with your insurance and whatever sent you there is on the mend. I in no way think things are flawless and have had my own issues with insurance over the years. I simply disagree with the premise presented here.I've had a denial without that information. In fact, I just spent 3 days in the hospital and I'm confident things will be denied. Let me keep you updated on how it goes. I bet my experience will be different then the, obvious, flawless experience with insurance companies you seem to be having.
Obama wanted a public option, so not really single payer. Not sure how much we can take from a failed primary run about policy in regards to Sanders.Eeehhh... President Obama got a ton of support behind him for pushing it, although it got watered down to the ACA. In 2016, a certain Vermont Senator who advocated Universal Care strongly was believed to have been the presumptive primary candidate, before certain factions within the Democrat party decided they preferred Secretary Clinton.
I think most people are in favor of an idealized version without the tradeoffs. I wish we would move past that into a more productive perspectives on what negatives might be and how we can minimize them but I don't think we're there yet.I think.people are roundly in support of an expanded Medicare available to all, but don't trust the Feds with a blank check to do so. A working model needs to be presented, and no one has really presented one. Any realistic model, as Senator Sanders likes to point out, involves some serious pay cuts to pretty much everyone on the supply side of health care. I don't think they have shown any interest in taking those cuts.
How about a federal web site showing the states, the insurance companies doing business therein, and their initial claims denial rate?
Getting the data would likely require federal legislation promising severe fines for failing to provide it, or making false claims. That's not going to happen under Trump, but perhaps the Democrats can start planning it now.
I assumed this was tongue in cheek but yea, all that information is available to you right now. Overall denial rate is 18%. This is average acrossed all providers, and excludes states with their own marketplace. But you can see by provider, their reasons for denial etc. Denial rates vary wildly, as do reason for denial.So... ACA plans are required to report denial and appeal rates, as well as reason categories, as part of the transparency regulations.
Oh for christ's sake, dude. I have been screaming from the rooftops that not only are they not "good company", but are likely heartless corporate bastards. What I'm not seeing is any actual data to support that. Like disproportionately high premature deaths of their insured people, or higher than average medical bankruptcies, something, anything, to show with data that they are not paying out as agreed., and causing disproportionate harm. A lawsuit has been filed claiming that they have done so. Lots of people claim ◊◊◊◊. There has been no decisive verdict yet.Just figured I'd drop a few things in here. First, shareholders are asking UHC to review their policies, much for the same reasons I have laid out in this thread. Don't worry though, I've set some time aside tonight to let them know that rdwight, thermal and Emily's Cat on the ISF have assured me that UHC is a good company that takes cares of its people and approves their claims with little to know action by the end user at all. I'm sure that will definitely put them at ease.
Oh for christ's sake, dude. I have been screaming from the rooftops that not only are they not "good company", but are likely heartless corporate bastards. What I'm not seeing is any actual data to support that. Like disproportionately high premature deaths of their insured people, or higher than average medical bankruptcies, something, anything, to show with data that they are not paying out as agreed., and causing disproportionate harm. A lawsuit has been filed claiming that they have done so. Lots of people claim ◊◊◊◊. There has been no decisive verdict yet.
"Shareholders are asking UHC to review their policies"? Well ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ duh. Their CEO was just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ murdered and half the country is not exactly up in arms about it. Basic ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ reactionary optics. Of course they need to do some image management. It was predictable and inevitable that they would do so, and I even said they would many pages ago. They will go through a dog and pony show of "being more committed to our policyholder's well-being", then drift back to business as usual.
The group proposed an analysis of how prior authorization, or approval required by an insurer before a patient can receive medical care, and denials of medical serviceslead patients to forgo treatment.
Prior authorizations were deployed 46 million times in 2022, up from 37 million in 2019, a KFF analysis of privately managed Medicare Advantage plans for people aged 65 and older or who are disabled found. CVS denied 13% of such requests while Elevance's (ELV.N) Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield denied 4.2%. UnitedHealthcare denied 8.7%.
Only about 10% of patients appeal these denials, and of those challenges, about one-third fail, KFF said.
In an American Medical Association 2023 survey, 94% of physicians said prior authorization delayed care, and 78% said it sometimes led to patients abandoning treatment.Nearly 1 in 4 reported it had resulted in a serious adverse event for patients and 95% reported it raised physician burnout.
Denials of health claims also increased, rising 31% in 2024 from 2022, according to a 2024 survey by credit firm Experian of 210 healthcare staff responsible for billing and reimbursement.
Patients who are denied claims appeals have few avenues of legal redress after the insurer’s own process. Federal law for employer-sponsored plans limits damages to the amount of a denied claim, which means few law firms are inclined to take such cases, said Sara Haviva Mark, a lawyer who specializes in representing people whose claims are denied.
In the KFF survey, 18% said their health plans did not pay for care they thought was covered in the prior 12 months.
Of course I'm not expecting UHC to produce a Death By UHC spreadsheet. What I am reasonably expecting is that when people swing their arms around claiming that everybody knows this, that it could be shown to some degree, usually by independent investigators. That's where we tend to get our smoking gun data, not from the original source who would of course be hiding it to the best of their ability.Do you think they track that information? No, of course not. It's not something they want the answer to so you're literally asking for information that doesn't exist. UHC is fighting releasing any of their denial\approval data in the lawsuit because they consider it proprietary. Despite rdwight's claims, they aren't giving patients information on their denial methods because it's "confidential". It's laid out in the lawsuit and multiple articles I've linked to here.
So yes, I understand you want something absolutely rock solid and that some here are claiming that is what skepticism is, but it's not. Skepticism is as much following evidence to a logical conclusion as it is anything else. Skeptics believe in evolution despite it not having every single piece to the puzzle. If all of the information linked here showing the issues with UHC's practices, from a DoJ investigation to a class action lawsuit, has you coming to the conclusion that none of the things you listed likely happened then I don't know what to tell you. Cool. I guess you're The Ultimate Skeptic.
This is actually good stuff. Remember when you recently said that you didn't even know you could appeal a denial? That's it. That's likely a huge chunk of the problem: people not reading their goddamned paperwork. The patients you are citing are literally not bothering to look into what they can do, and forego their health by their own inaction.Did you read the article? Something I've been saying this whole time:
Right. Shareholders have money involved, and they stand to lose a lot of value if their stock drops in value because of the bad press they are getting, courtesy of Luigi and dead Brian.But "skepticism" leads us to believe that those patients choosing to forgo treatment doesn't result in death? Bankruptcies? Seriously, this isn't quantum physics here. The actual shareholders are saying this not just some randoms. The people that have money invested.
OK, that's the stuff. Oddly, the article won't load, keeps going blank. But it's Reuters, one of my most trusted sources, and I believe that you are posting accurately and in context.Here are some stats on denials from this article:
The hilited seems important. All of this combined evidence but it's just too much of a leap to figure out how it ends for the customers? I hate to say it but dead bodies don't file lawsuits and most people don't know how to file lawsuits or when they should speak to a lawyer so that information doesn't get out. It's not easy to track but to deny that it's there is just ignorance, plain and simple.
eta: your hilited. If the doctors claim that the authorization process resulted in adverse outcomes for the patients, that means the doctor refused to give them needed care and let them take it on the chin, rather than jeopardize being part of that sub 3% ultimate denial rate. Docs make, on average, $350k/yr. How much even theoretical income might they be losing, for withholding treatment that they willfully allow their patients to go without, unless it is reimbursed fast?
No, you got that globally wrong. EC even specifically pointed out that the colonoscopy guy wanted covered a preventative colonoscopy 2 years sooner than the plan covered. No necessary reason of any kind given, just the doc recommended it. The guy could do whatever he wanted to fund an optional colonoscopy, or take the one 24 months later that his plan covered in full. That's a choice we all make. Pay for the Cadillac, or take the previously agreed-to by all parties Chevy.What? That's not what it ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ means at all. It means that when the doctor told them they needed a treatment, submitted pre-auth to the insurer, and UHC wouldn't cover it, the patient had to make the choice to go without. In those cases the patient had to go without it caused serious adverse effects to their health. It has nothing to do with the doctor other than he's the one prescribing it, but as Emily's Cat said, the next step for that patient would be to crowd fund for treatment, or go without the treatment. Of course the doctor will still do it, the patient just can't afford it.
Christ, you haven't caught up to that one yet? That figure was gross revenue, meaning all premiums in total. Their actual profit was mathematically 1/1000th of that.Man, for not simping for UHC you sure seem to be doing a good job at simping for UHC. Every excuse in the book and it's always either the doctor or the patient's fault. That's insanity to me. Hell, you bring up doctor wages like Thompson wasn't making MILLIONS a year and like UHC isn't making BILLIONS a fiscal quarter.
I'm anti most corporate involvement of any kind. I am also taking that position for the real reasons, not imaginary ones.You've blamed everyone but UHC but still seem to be saying you're anti-UHC. You should make their pamphlet next year you're so anti...
No, you got that globally wrong. EC even specifically pointed out that the colonoscopy guy wanted covered a preventative colonoscopy 2 years sooner than the plan covered.No necessary reason of any kind given, just the doc recommended it. The guy could do whatever he wanted to fund an optional colonoscopy, or take the one 24 months later that his plan covered in full. That's a choice we all make. Pay for the Cadillac, or take the previously agreed-to by all parties Chevy.
Christ, you haven't caught up to that one yet? That figure was gross revenue, meaning all premiums in total. Their actual profit was mathematically 1/1000th of that.
I'm anti most corporate involvement of any kind. I am also taking that position for the real reasons, not imaginary ones.
Yup. And they scrape the polyps when you get a colonoscopy done. And while you seem blissfully unaware of it, doctors do recommend all kinds of unnecessary treatments. They are in the job of giving their best advice, whether insurance is covering it or not. The doc could recommend a yearly colonoscopy if he felt like it. But there would be no way to justify it to the insurer, who goes by the medical stats and their agreement with the docs, which this patient had no demonstrable reason to circumvent.Not true, he suggested a colonoscopy two years earlier because the individual had multiple polyps growing on his colon. It wasn't out of nowhere, it wasn't a mere suggestion, it was something to track a growing concern. Which is what insurance should cover. Hell, $900 is maybe two months worth of the premiums this guy paid between his employer and himself. Probably closer to 1 month.
This isn't a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ luxury item he's buying. He's not picking premium ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ care over the basics. It's very doubtful that he WANTS to have another colonoscopy. From what I understand the procedure isn't a blast. He had polyps, the things that literally grow into cancer. Jesus Christ.
Oh for christ's sake dude. Premiums are that big ol' 91% going straight out to reimbursements. A ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ doctor does not reimburse 91% of his ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ income back to his ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ patients. Are you arguing in anything resembling good faith with this ◊◊◊◊?Lol so it's fine to point out the "gross" salary of a doctor (which $375k certainly isn't in my neck of the woods) but to compare it to gross revenue is wrong? That's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ awesome way to do "skepticism". Top notch.
Guess not.Sure, Jan.
Yup. And they scrape the polyps when you get a colonoscopy done. And while you seem blissfully unaware of it, doctors do recommend all kinds of unnecessary treatments. They are in the job of giving their best advice, whether insurance is covering it or not. The doc could recommend a yearly colonoscopy if he felt like it. But there would be no way to justify it to the insurer, who goes by the medical stats and their agreement with the docs, which this patient had no demonstrable reason to circumvent.
Oh for christ's sake dude. Premiums are that big ol' 91% going straight out to reimbursements. A ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ doctor does not reimburse 91% of his ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ income back to his ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ patients. Are you arguing in anything resembling good faith with this ◊◊◊◊?
Guess not.
No, I'm doing exactly what you are doing, reading the available information in the article. You read it and tack on elements, like it must be medically necessary. I read it with the understanding that a doctor can prrscribe a treatment if it is necessary, and recommend if it if it is not, but might be a good idea. I know a doc can scrape the polyps and that patient statistically is clear for 5 years at his age. The doc either left polyps in (no idea why), or thought they required more aggressive monitoring, that he could have prescribed as pre-cancerous intervention.Wow, you know a lot about his medical history for someone completely and entirely unaffiliated with his medical care. That's pretty impressive for you and I had no idea you were a doctor as well! What can't you do!
I'm not denying doctors can\do recommend unnecessary treatments but the doc didn't recommend a yearly did he? He recommended one in 3 years, which goes to show that he isn't in just for a paycheck. It's the best diagnosis for the person in his care. Again, you just blame the doctors and simp for the insurance company. Growing polyps are a reason for concern.
As far as docs recommending unnecessary care, I just spent 3 days in the hospital because I had pneumonia. They then kept me in airborne contagion lockdown because they thought that I *could* have had TB due to blood in my phlegm, after also doing a CT scan and knowing it was because of the pneumonia.
So I'm fully aware, but that doesn't mean anything with regards to this procedure being unnecessary and despite you saying so you actually have exactly ◊◊◊◊ all to support your implication that a 3 year colonoscopy was unnecessary. You're just...saying it is. That's it. Internet rando says medical procedure is unnecessary based on absolutely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ nothing isn't really all that convincing to me, but when you're simping for insurance companies you gotta keep that game on lockdown.
Fair point, i didnt factor in administrative costs and profits, my bad. Oh, and dont forget Thompsons $10 mil/yr salary. That costs each policy holder a whopping 20 cents per year each. You're absolutely right. That less than two pennies per month cost a lot of people their homes. Especially trying to find half pennies to pay it.You're saying right now that 91% of all funds that come into an insurance company get paid right back out? That's your claim right here, right now?
I really wish you could at least try to be honest and forthright sometimes. None of us have suggested that UHC is a good company. PErsonally, I think they're kind of dog ◊◊◊◊, and I know a lot of people who are pretty unhappy with their coverage and service through UHC. I've refrained from saying so, mostly because their one of my company's largest competitors so they're "the enemy" as far as my day-to-day work goes, and I know I'm biased.Just figured I'd drop a few things in here. First, shareholders are asking UHC to review their policies, much for the same reasons I have laid out in this thread. Don't worry though, I've set some time aside tonight to let them know that rdwight, thermal and Emily's Cat on the ISF have assured me that UHC is a good company that takes cares of its people and approves their claims with little to know action by the end user at all. I'm sure that will definitely put them at ease.
And yet you haven't managed to provide any real evidence of lives lost or signficantly impaired.Also, this article is behind a paywall but it appears the DoJ is wanting to speak withe doctors that have worked with UHC. The headline talks about how clinicians told STAT that they were pressured by good ol' UHC to use lucrative codes. I don't want to pay for the article, but I'm sure it's nothing. Probably just more of UHC being the good people taking care of their clients at a 90% clip. It's funny how things just keep mounting up showing UHC has policies aimed to negatively affect the people who use their service, but being "skeptics" we, apparently, can't logically follow a chain of evidence to a conclusion that this has resulted in lives lost or individuals physical impaired due to these decisions. Nope, not here. We "skeptics" have to have a literal admission written on paper saying that those at UHC specifically wanted someone to die. As if negligence is any better.
Not just not reading the paperwork... not even reading the denial letter itself. When a claim is denied, insurers are required by law to tell the patient why the claim was denied and to provide information on how to appeal that denial, including mailing address and phone number.This is actually good stuff. Remember when you recently said that you didn't even know you could appeal a denial? That's it. That's likely a huge chunk of the problem: people not reading their goddamned paperwork. The patients you are citing are literally not bothering to look into what they can do, and forego their health by their own inaction.
In fairness to plague, he is categorically NOT supporting the murders. He is consistently saying that it is wrong to murder, but come on, they are bastards and made their beds to some degree.I really wish you could at least try to be honest and forthright sometimes. None of us have suggested that UHC is a good company. PErsonally, I think they're kind of dog ◊◊◊◊, and I know a lot of people who are pretty unhappy with their coverage and service through UHC. I've refrained from saying so, mostly because their one of my company's largest competitors so they're "the enemy" as far as my day-to-day work goes, and I know I'm biased.
The objection from me and thermal and rdwight isn't about UHC - it's about you 1) justifying and defending the assassination of UHC's CEO and 2) extending that rationalization for outright ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ murder to EVERY insurance company in the US.
Again, in fairness, he is not on the pro-murder platform. He is on the pro-these-guys-suck-hard-and-their-hands-ain't-clean platform.And yet you haven't managed to provide any real evidence of lives lost or signficantly impaired.
Some may have been, and in ANY health system - including universal care - some people WILL be denied something they want because it's not efficacious or it's prohibitively expensive. But you haven't produced any support for your continued assertion that ALL MEDICAL INSURERS IN THE US ARE MURDERERS!!!11eleventyone!
FFS, my comment was tongue in cheek, although only partly. At heart, you're complaining that people are dying because they can't afford things that are abusively over-priced... but you're not complaining about the prices, nope - you're complaining that someone else won't pay for the abusively priced thing, and that means that the company that won't pay abusive prices is tantamount to a murderer. You're happy to keep letting the abusively priced things be abusively priced.What? That's not what it ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ means at all. It means that when the doctor told them they needed a treatment, submitted pre-auth to the insurer, and UHC wouldn't cover it, the patient had to make the choice to go without. In those cases the patient had to go without it caused serious adverse effects to their health. It has nothing to do with the doctor other than he's the one prescribing it, but as Emily's Cat said, the next step for that patient would be to crowd fund for treatment, or go without the treatment. Of course the doctor will still do it, the patient just can't afford it.
They had already had one colonoscopy, and the polyps had already been noted and checked. They were clearly benign - otherwise the protocol would have been surgical removal or cancer treatments. That the only recommendation from the doctor was "check again in three years" makes it pretty clear that it was NOT a massive concern.Not true, he suggested a colonoscopy two years earlier because the individual had multiple polyps growing on his colon. It wasn't out of nowhere, it wasn't a mere suggestion, it was something to track a growing concern. Which is what insurance should cover.
Have you been granted knowledge from the gods that this is the best treatment protocol for this individual? Methinks not. I think you're just making the blanket assumption that doctors are noble beings who act only in the interest of their patients.I'm not denying doctors can\do recommend unnecessary treatments but the doc didn't recommend a yearly did he? He recommended one in 3 years, which goes to show that he isn't in just for a paycheck. It's the best diagnosis for the person in his care.
Are you aware that keeping you in a contagion lockdown like that, for 3 days, allowed your hospital to bill your insurance company for tends of thousands of dollars for something that they KNEW was not TB? Are you aware that those costs then cause EVERYONE ELSE'S premiums to increase? And for what? So that the hospital could make more money off of you.As far as docs recommending unnecessary care, I just spent 3 days in the hospital because I had pneumonia. They then kept me in airborne contagion lockdown because they thought that I *could* have had TB due to blood in my phlegm, after also doing a CT scan and knowing it was because of the pneumonia.
Declining to pay for procedures you never offered to pay for is not a moral failing.No, I'm not "at that point". Do you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ people know how to do anything other than strawman or is that it? I didn't say he got assassinated for that at all. I'm saying that we have examples of people being denied reimbursement of their treatment, or a future treatment, through their insurance, and that causes them to change their treatment. As Emily's Cat uselessly ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ pointed out, sure they aren't being "denied treatment" but it's the same ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thing. People don't have $900 laying around, and her answer to that was "start a gofundme" or "borrow money from others" and these are just the stories we're hearing about.
The doctor saw polyps on his colon, whether they were benign or not doesn't change the fact they should be monitored more routinely as the next ones might not be. It's a completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ valid medical conclusion. Someone else mentioned that the doctor could be prescribing it to make money? Seriously? How ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid is that? Like the ass doc is running short on people to examine. There are places with months long waiting lists to get in and the "skeptics" here are like, "Oh he just trying to drum up some business".
So yes, this man hasn't died "yet". We probably won't hear about it if he does but again these aren't one-off stories. You can find stories about people being denied payment for a service from their insurance all over the place. That was my ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ point. Being told insurance won't cover something changes the end users behavior and not for the better. Of course to the "skeptics" unless there's anything short of a recorded phone call of Thompson saying "deny his coverage so he'll die, muahahahaha" then we just have to dig our ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't happen. This is literally the same ◊◊◊◊ that happens in the while black threads with the same people doing it. You couldn't make this ◊◊◊◊ up.
Potato potahto.In fairness to plague, he is categorically NOT supporting the murders. He is consistently saying that it is wrong to murder, but come on, they are bastards and made their beds to some degree.
You're convinced because... why?I'm convinced that the actions of medical insurers are responsible for dead bodies.
Are you aware that keeping you in a contagion lockdown like that, for 3 days, allowed your hospital to bill your insurance company for tends of thousands of dollars for something that they KNEW was not TB? Are you aware that those costs then cause EVERYONE ELSE'S premiums to increase? And for what? So that the hospital could make more money off of you.
You're convinced because... why?
Seriously, you're working from pure unadulterated belief, plague. But you are completely dedicated to that belief, and you're not using an ounce of logic or skeptical thinking to back it up.
Declining to pay for procedures you never offered to pay for is not a moral failing.
None of the articles you posted suggest insurers are responsible for dead bodies though.The articles I've posted, the inevitable conclusion of what the choices for customers mean, and it's laid out in all of my posts. You saying I'm not using skeptical thinking only gives me more confidence in my conclusion. I'm not going to explain it again, but if you need help using the search function to locate my posts and read through the articles, lawsuits, and shareholder requests then by all means let me know. I can walk you through that for sure.
None of the articles you posted suggest insurers are responsible for dead bodies though.
Yeah, I guess "responsible/had a hand in the deaths" v "murder" is not some unbreachable chasm of difference.Potato potahto.
"I categorically do not support murdering anybody"
"But you know, Thompson was totally a murderer who killed thousands of people, and well, all insurance CEOs are totally murderers responsible for killing tons and tons of people, and the law just lets them keep on killing, so it's totally understandable that someone would eventually step in since the law isn't doing it's job"
Yeah, I guess "responsible/had a hand in the deaths" v "murder" is not some unbreachable chasm of difference.
You're not saying the difference is between understanding and condoning. That's literally my line since the start of the thread. You are saying he is personally responsible, but "oh no man, not like with actual consequences". That doesn't really track.*pats on head* That's right, be a good boy and nod along. Lets totally pretend like there's no difference between understanding how something can happen and condoning something happening. Just more "skepticism" being practiced in real time. I don't have any scooby snacks, I'll bring them along next time.