AIBU to say I'm surprised a healthcare CEO hasn't been assassinated sooner?

[Chowtime]

Obviously what's happened in America with regard to Brian Thompson is awful but surely it was only a matter of time before someone revolted against their billionaire dollar profits and lack of payouts for individuals who've paid in for years.

For everyone saying the backpack isn’t the same one, the photos with him smiling at the receptionist are supposedly from ten days previously, plus the new photos with him in/near a taxi he has a different coat on. I think spare clothes were found in the backpack in the park too.

Of course it’s being rationed, it’s just done In different way. We have waiting lists and lack of capacity for treatment.

I'd assume he had one backpack for clothing and personal items he needed for his stay in NYC and another that he intended to carry the weapon in when he carried out the assassination.

I don't see anything odd at all about a change of clothes/jacket/backpack.

Thank you @Lowcarbonated .. appreciated.

It's reinstated from a certain date onwards which means that 1) I dont have to go back to the Uk and leave my kids and 2) I got the crisis treatment I needed.

There is still a chance I will have to pay back the costs of 17 years' health care which means selling my house, but that chance is looking much smaller now.

By sheer luck a very ferocious lawyer with a heart of gold took my case on and she's managed to get things turning around. We hear for sure on Friday one way or another, but it's moved from 'very high chance of having to repaying most of it' to 'much lower chance' thanks to her research, training and sheer determination. She's also said she will carry on with my case if we do lose it, and even take it to the European Court of Human Rights if it goes that far.

She has made the difference between my life falling completely apart and not. But for a time it looked grim and I truly do not care if someone shoots the head of the health insurance company concerned. Why should I? I made the same decision as @Pherian's poor father has made, if I had to leave my children behind in this country.

Definitely. I have been in pain for over a year with back pain and numbness in both legs which is affecting my mobility. To the extent I’ve started falling as I can’t feel my feet well. It comes and goes. I’m not old. I’ve seen 3x GPs and one time even said I’m worried I’ve got MS. They refuse to do any referrals or testing other than one appointment with a physio who said to do calf raises. Last appt I was just prescribed nerve pain meds. 🤷‍♀️

im going to have to see someone privately I guess. Maybe pay for an mri.

Has anyone asked Simon Reeve where he was on Wednesday? 🤔🕵️‍♂️

There is still a chance I will have to pay back the costs of 17 years' health care which means selling my house, but that chance is looking much smaller now.

What? How on earth could that happen, @DucklingSwimmingInstructress? If you had health insurance in 2019, for example, how can the insurance company now say that you have pay for the treatment you received back then?

It’s insane, that’s not how health insurance is supposed to work!

They say that my country of origin (Uk) should have been responsible for the last 17 years. The UK say definitely not. The insurance company sent a lot of premiums back and then said I'd have to pay for the cost of treatment over the years, which has been expensive - among other things, two very bad pregnancies with hospital stays.

I appealed it to the Dutch 'social insurance department' who said that I was insured from 2020 onwards but still might not have been insured from 2007 - 2020 (so, thirteen years as it turns out, but the insurance company tried to establish a claim from 2007 - 2024).

On Friday the 'social insurance department' lawyer is talking to mine and my lawyer's given them some European legislation that means I should be ok. But if they decide against me, then to court it will have to go, and 6 months' uncertainty.

But the NL is a country that does have the principle that everyone should have access to health care insurance even if the insurance company ferreted out a tiny loophole that I've fallen through, which is why I can appeal to the govt 'social insurance department' and if that doesn't work, can take it to the European Court of Human Rights.

In the US there isn't that basic expectation as far as I'm aware. Hence the appalling actions that some health insurance companies can get away with.

Re health care being rationed. What I've noticed over the last year or two is that there seems to be a lot of check boxes or processes involved. You report in with an obvious problem with a clear solution, like asthma or a broken hip - they know what to do, and they'll do it. Tell them you have a generalised pain, or something else that's harder to pin down, and they'll tend to fob you off.

@DucklingSwimmingInstructress That's truly bizarre. The Dutch system does sound very different to the US though, they don't care where you're originally from, it's all to do with money and being able to afford an insurance plan with good coverage. Some people do receive subsidies to help with the premiums, but inevitably, others aren't quite eligible for help, and they suffer for it.

I'm so sorry that you're going through this.

I am missing something here. Surely the reality is that national health systems pay the difference between actual commercial price and users' subsidised price?

I'm in Australia, and I used to take Humira and now take Simponi for Rheumatoid Arthritis. When I started taking it, the box indicated that the full price was $1800/per dose, and I paid around $40/per month for it. After a couple of years the full price was listed as $1200 as Medicare had negotiated a lower price because they were buying large quantities, and I now pay $30/month.

So in reality, isn't the US pharmaceutical company getting its full price for my dose through the Australian government? I am probably completely missing something bleeding obvious. Or I am just dim.

The normal market rules of supply and demand that affect most commodities don’t apply to most drugs because production and sale is controlled so there are monopolistic forces on both the supply and demand side.

Drug prices are normally mediated by government or insurance deals so drugs are sold at very different prices in different countries. Manufacturers try to maximize their profits by selling at as high a price as they can get in each country but most places just won’t pay as much as the US will, in part because there isn’t as much money for health care in many countries and in part because the US government doesn’t negotiate the price of drugs on behalf of its citizenry.

So in Australia Medicare may have negotiated a price of $1200, which the manufacturer will get, but in the US the manufacturer may be able to charge $2000 on average. The US has a somewhat Byzantine system that mediates drug prices with drug companies, insurance companies, intermediaries, and sometimes individual States all playing parts. But what it comes down to is that they don’t have the same monopolistic pressure (nor the same ethical goals) as Australia’s Medicare program, so it is not as effective at lowering the price the manufacturer gets paid.

thank you @@BruFord

The dutch system is different as the govt and the EU have the principle that everyone should have access to healthcare. But the insurance company's manner of going about this was brutally money-orientated - not honouring the contract to the end of the year as they should have (after 17 years!), stopping it within 8 hours at 10pm at night (!) and when finally told some weeks later that they had to provide cover, they took well over a week. As I say I had a breakdown at the realisation that I'd probably have to leave my kids here and go back to the UK, and they truly could not care less about the impact of the situation they created.

While the EU and the Dutch govt may have a humanitarian commitment to making health insurance available to everyone, the insurance companies here are just as ruthless and only care about money.

The NHS is struggling badly but it's not actually predicated on making money. It has its pros and cons, but I think that it does mean that the ethos that 'people in medical need shoudl be treated' is the primary ideal, not 'we have to do this, but let's do as little as we can and save every penny no matter what'.

RawBloomers That's interesting about negotiating power. I read that the NHS is incredibly financially efficient as it can negotiate prices in bulk for the whole country. Is this correct?
I remember Michael Moore's documentary 'Sicko' where he took some Americans struggling with healthcare costs to Cuba to buy things such as asthma pumps at a fraction of the price they paid in the US.

The US has a somewhat Byzantine system that mediates drug prices with drug companies, insurance companies, intermediaries, and sometimes individual States all playing parts

True. I noticed the "retail price" on a 90-day prescription I picked up at the pharmacy was $1,000.00. Insurance covered it and the cost to me was zero. I'm assuming insurance did not pay the full retail cost but some negotiated reduced charge.

But an uninsured person presumably would be charged full price.

@CulturalNomad Yes, slightly different, but I had surgery earlier this year and as I have a high deductible plan, I paid the amount negotiated by the insurance company, about $4,500.

Without insurance, my bill would've been over $30,000!! It makes no sense to me, because if the hospital was willing to accept $4,500 for the procedure, why not just charge everyone that?

Few people can pay $30K upfront anyway, I'd have had to go on a monthly payment plan, which is inefficient for the hospital.

Looks like they got him. Suspect under arrest in Pennsylvania.

Fobbed in by a McDonald’s employee who thought he looked like the gunman. Shame he hadn’t shaved his hair off/changed his appearance more. Found with a gun, a silencer and an anti health companies manifesto in his bag….reports that the gun was printed off a 3d printer!

Why on earth would he still have the gun???

And why was he in a McDonalds rather than hiding?

Because he's not the criminal genius the internet was making him out to be?

He really had to have known from the beginning that he'd eventually be caught.

Couldn't resist that quarter pounder and fries😂

Yeah but one need not be a criminal genius to ditch the murder weapon. That's not exactly 4D chess.

I think it's a good possibility that he always knew he'd be caught.

The hate online for that McDonald's employee is already something to behold. I would not want to be working there.