He was the sub-CEO of the division that was responsible for creating the system that generated algorithmic denials that denied 91% of cases, mostly erroneously.
Brian made $10m in 2023. Kim Keck, CEO of BCBS, made $4m. That $6M delta came from SOMETHING profitable that his team drove, and that something profitab…
He was the sub-CEO of the division that was responsible for creating the system that generated algorithmic denials that denied 91% of cases, mostly erroneously.
Brian made $10m in 2023. Kim Keck, CEO of BCBS, made $4m. That $6M delta came from SOMETHING profitable that his team drove, and that something profitable was increased denials. It's worth it to note that comp comes before margins - the vast delta in comp going to this guy and the other executives like him is part of why United "only" has 6-7% margins.
To save money, this CEO authorized denial of claims by AI which almost certainly denied claims that should have been authorized. In other words, his choices directly led to the deaths of thousands if not tens of thousands of people and brought him (and his shareholders) millions of dollars.
Yes, health care resources aren't infinite and need to be rationed somehow. The way they should be rationed is via NIH "death panels" who decide on care standards and cutoffs based on QALY's, not on an executive deciding "I'd like another ski chalet" and driving initiatives that increase denials and internal profitability.
Your claims about profits, margins, salaries, chalets etc don't come close to proving that "his choices directly led to the deaths of thousands if not tens of thousands of people", this seems hyperbolic to say the least.
Just because someone has a claim denied DOES NOT equate DIRECTLY with murder—people have claims denied for all sorts of reasons, including the fact that it may cost tens of thousands to extend their lives a few mos or that a doctor, hospital or drug co may be charging an enormous price for a drug or procedure that the insurance co doesn't cover. If the insurance co decides not to pay for an expensive treatment to keep an octogenarian alive another month or two does that make them morally equivalent to MURDERERS?
Does Keck's $4m salary mean that Keck doesn't deserve to be murdered? Do the health bureaucrats in other countries who deny various expense forms of end-of-life care also deserve to be executed for murder? Who decides where the line is drawn?
—The way they should be rationed is via NIH "death panels"—why shouldn't these people be murdered too? Is it the profit motive itself that renders someone an enemy of humanity that can be killed in cold blood without a trial?
Hey, I'm not an expert on the American health care system, I don't pretend to be and I wouldn't defend it anyway, as I like everyone else has had hassles and been denied claims and coverage etc.
The point I'm trying to make is that supporting or excusing vigilante political murder is a barbaric exchange of the rule of law for the law of the jungle and that it opens up a Pandora's Box of political violence that won't necessarily lead to anything better, in fact it could lead to things being much uglier, more brutal and violent.
People hate CEOs and politicians for all sorts of reasons, people hate oil cos, tech cos, drug cos, bankers, hedge funders, landlords etc etc—why don't they deserve to be murdered in the street too?
You raise an important concern: where do we draw the line between moral outrage and justifying violence? Once vigilante actions are excused, the door opens for chaos rather than justice. It’s a slippery slope—if every hated figure becomes a target, society devolves into unchecked brutality.
Usually all "rule of law" come about through overthrowing and revolting against an earlier rule of law, or you'd be under the descendants of George III now...
John Adams was able to fight for American independence while preserving the rule of law, and he didn't even have Nazi Germany analogies to fall back on.
"The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions, or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations, and wanton tempers of men. To use the words of a great and worthy man, a patriot, and an hero, and enlightned friend of mankind, and a martyr to liberty; I mean Algernon Sidney, who from his earliest infancy sought a tranquil retirement under the shadow of the tree of liberty, with his tongue, his pen, and his sword, “The law, (says he,) no passion can disturb. Tis void of desire and fear, lust and anger. ’Tis menc sine affectu; written reason; retaining some measure of the divine perfection. It does not enjoin that which pleases a weak, frail man, but without any regard to persons, commands that which is good, and punishes evil in all, whether rich, or poor, high or low,—Tis deaf, inexorable, inflexible.”
> John Adams was able to fight for American independence while preserving the rule of law
The same John Adams who was in favor of the Tea Party incident, where protestors boarded a private ship and destroyed its cargo?
And who handled the logistics for a rebel army at war against the legitimate power of the land? Was that George's III law, or some new law Adams preferred?
The Tea Party had no casualties and the colonists still fought for and maintained the rule of law, even during the Revolutionary War, which is why American law is based on common law from the United Kingdom as one of its core legal pillars.
No Founding Father or politician advocated for vigilante political murder or defended it. This is the law of the jungle I was referring to in my initial comment.
If you want to defend people shooting others in the back for political reasons, feel free.
English common law is deeply flawed and has resulted in abominations such as corporations awarded the same rights as humans. i’m not sure that’s a firm basis for arguing your case.
If only the people leading the charge against the health insurers were of the caliber of the founding fathers! Instead it’s idiots all the way down.
My favorite joke comes to mind: what did communists use for reading before candles? Electricity. That’s what’s in store for us when the intellectual geniuses of the 21st century succeed in smashing the system.
> My favorite joke comes to mind: what did communists use for reading before candles? Electricity.
Well, a funny aside: one main concern in USSR, starting from 1917, was the electrification of the country - getting cables up and providing electricity all around, which the Czar had neglected. The main slogan was "Communism is worker's councils plus electrification". They did well enough, that a mostly backwards rural country built a major industry in 20 years, and even managed to stood up to the Germans and eventually win the war.
And inversely, with the fall of communism (between 1989 and 1991) many ex-communist families had to resort to candles or chopping furniture for heating, at least for a couple of years, because their financial situation got real shitty real quick.
Yea they won the war due to their major industry. Not because of the millions of people they marched in, often without even bullets, to be mowed down as cannon fodder by the Germans until the Germans ran out of steam (as they were fighting a couple other superpowers at the same time). You’re delusional if you really think the USSR won the war due to the technological prowess of the communists. And yea things got bad real quick in 89-91 because of 70 years of social hollowing out due to the communist policies which were creating a utopia. They were so close to achieving it too 🙄 yikes
That’s a great response, and exactly what I thought when I heard the joke, but who in this world can rival Stalin? We don’t have that kind of leader any more. Call me a pessimist but what comes next in this country is the opposite of this example.
I guarantee neither you nor anyone having temper tantrums about health insurance has paid or ever will pay enough in premiums to cover their own health care expenses.
If one cannot converse with the most basic knowledge on a topic, one ought to keep one’s thoughts in one’s head unless and/or until they take the initiative to learn.
For those of us who know how it actually works, these noxious “takes” presenting gross falsehoods as truths swing between hilarious and pitiful.
> I guarantee neither you nor anyone having temper tantrums about health insurance has paid or ever will pay enough in premiums to cover their own health care expenses.
Is this supposed to be a point in some kind of argument? NOT having to "pay enough in premiums to cover their own health care expenses" is the whole idea behind health insurance (whether public or private)...
(Never mind the "health care expenses" being ridicously overblown in the US to begin with through pure corporate greed)
> Any proof for this claim?
He was the sub-CEO of the division that was responsible for creating the system that generated algorithmic denials that denied 91% of cases, mostly erroneously.
Brian made $10m in 2023. Kim Keck, CEO of BCBS, made $4m. That $6M delta came from SOMETHING profitable that his team drove, and that something profitable was increased denials. It's worth it to note that comp comes before margins - the vast delta in comp going to this guy and the other executives like him is part of why United "only" has 6-7% margins.
To save money, this CEO authorized denial of claims by AI which almost certainly denied claims that should have been authorized. In other words, his choices directly led to the deaths of thousands if not tens of thousands of people and brought him (and his shareholders) millions of dollars.
Yes, health care resources aren't infinite and need to be rationed somehow. The way they should be rationed is via NIH "death panels" who decide on care standards and cutoffs based on QALY's, not on an executive deciding "I'd like another ski chalet" and driving initiatives that increase denials and internal profitability.
Your claims about profits, margins, salaries, chalets etc don't come close to proving that "his choices directly led to the deaths of thousands if not tens of thousands of people", this seems hyperbolic to say the least.
Just because someone has a claim denied DOES NOT equate DIRECTLY with murder—people have claims denied for all sorts of reasons, including the fact that it may cost tens of thousands to extend their lives a few mos or that a doctor, hospital or drug co may be charging an enormous price for a drug or procedure that the insurance co doesn't cover. If the insurance co decides not to pay for an expensive treatment to keep an octogenarian alive another month or two does that make them morally equivalent to MURDERERS?
Does Keck's $4m salary mean that Keck doesn't deserve to be murdered? Do the health bureaucrats in other countries who deny various expense forms of end-of-life care also deserve to be executed for murder? Who decides where the line is drawn?
—The way they should be rationed is via NIH "death panels"—why shouldn't these people be murdered too? Is it the profit motive itself that renders someone an enemy of humanity that can be killed in cold blood without a trial?
Hey, I'm not an expert on the American health care system, I don't pretend to be and I wouldn't defend it anyway, as I like everyone else has had hassles and been denied claims and coverage etc.
The point I'm trying to make is that supporting or excusing vigilante political murder is a barbaric exchange of the rule of law for the law of the jungle and that it opens up a Pandora's Box of political violence that won't necessarily lead to anything better, in fact it could lead to things being much uglier, more brutal and violent.
People hate CEOs and politicians for all sorts of reasons, people hate oil cos, tech cos, drug cos, bankers, hedge funders, landlords etc etc—why don't they deserve to be murdered in the street too?
You raise an important concern: where do we draw the line between moral outrage and justifying violence? Once vigilante actions are excused, the door opens for chaos rather than justice. It’s a slippery slope—if every hated figure becomes a target, society devolves into unchecked brutality.
It's either the rule of law or the law of the jungle.
Choose wisely!
Usually all "rule of law" come about through overthrowing and revolting against an earlier rule of law, or you'd be under the descendants of George III now...
John Adams was able to fight for American independence while preserving the rule of law, and he didn't even have Nazi Germany analogies to fall back on.
"The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions, or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations, and wanton tempers of men. To use the words of a great and worthy man, a patriot, and an hero, and enlightned friend of mankind, and a martyr to liberty; I mean Algernon Sidney, who from his earliest infancy sought a tranquil retirement under the shadow of the tree of liberty, with his tongue, his pen, and his sword, “The law, (says he,) no passion can disturb. Tis void of desire and fear, lust and anger. ’Tis menc sine affectu; written reason; retaining some measure of the divine perfection. It does not enjoin that which pleases a weak, frail man, but without any regard to persons, commands that which is good, and punishes evil in all, whether rich, or poor, high or low,—Tis deaf, inexorable, inflexible.”
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/05-03-02-0001-0004-0016
> John Adams was able to fight for American independence while preserving the rule of law
The same John Adams who was in favor of the Tea Party incident, where protestors boarded a private ship and destroyed its cargo?
And who handled the logistics for a rebel army at war against the legitimate power of the land? Was that George's III law, or some new law Adams preferred?
The Tea Party had no casualties and the colonists still fought for and maintained the rule of law, even during the Revolutionary War, which is why American law is based on common law from the United Kingdom as one of its core legal pillars.
No Founding Father or politician advocated for vigilante political murder or defended it. This is the law of the jungle I was referring to in my initial comment.
If you want to defend people shooting others in the back for political reasons, feel free.
> The Tea Party had no casualties
You're saying the rule of law is preserved if you don't kill anyone? Like, "Your honor, I was just destroying buildings or burning merchandise"?
> No Founding Father or politician advocated for vigilante political murder or defended it.
No, just full scale armed rebellion against the government of the land, and attacking the (at the time) legitimate army.
English common law is deeply flawed and has resulted in abominations such as corporations awarded the same rights as humans. i’m not sure that’s a firm basis for arguing your case.
If only the people leading the charge against the health insurers were of the caliber of the founding fathers! Instead it’s idiots all the way down.
My favorite joke comes to mind: what did communists use for reading before candles? Electricity. That’s what’s in store for us when the intellectual geniuses of the 21st century succeed in smashing the system.
> My favorite joke comes to mind: what did communists use for reading before candles? Electricity.
Well, a funny aside: one main concern in USSR, starting from 1917, was the electrification of the country - getting cables up and providing electricity all around, which the Czar had neglected. The main slogan was "Communism is worker's councils plus electrification". They did well enough, that a mostly backwards rural country built a major industry in 20 years, and even managed to stood up to the Germans and eventually win the war.
And inversely, with the fall of communism (between 1989 and 1991) many ex-communist families had to resort to candles or chopping furniture for heating, at least for a couple of years, because their financial situation got real shitty real quick.
Yea they won the war due to their major industry. Not because of the millions of people they marched in, often without even bullets, to be mowed down as cannon fodder by the Germans until the Germans ran out of steam (as they were fighting a couple other superpowers at the same time). You’re delusional if you really think the USSR won the war due to the technological prowess of the communists. And yea things got bad real quick in 89-91 because of 70 years of social hollowing out due to the communist policies which were creating a utopia. They were so close to achieving it too 🙄 yikes
That’s a great response, and exactly what I thought when I heard the joke, but who in this world can rival Stalin? We don’t have that kind of leader any more. Call me a pessimist but what comes next in this country is the opposite of this example.
🙄 Your post is typical of people who know *nothing* about health insurance, much less AI, yet make sweeping claims.
People don't need to know a lot about health insurance to know they got screwed over by health insurance.
I guarantee neither you nor anyone having temper tantrums about health insurance has paid or ever will pay enough in premiums to cover their own health care expenses.
If one cannot converse with the most basic knowledge on a topic, one ought to keep one’s thoughts in one’s head unless and/or until they take the initiative to learn.
For those of us who know how it actually works, these noxious “takes” presenting gross falsehoods as truths swing between hilarious and pitiful.
Emotions aren’t valid indicators of reality.
> I guarantee neither you nor anyone having temper tantrums about health insurance has paid or ever will pay enough in premiums to cover their own health care expenses.
Is this supposed to be a point in some kind of argument? NOT having to "pay enough in premiums to cover their own health care expenses" is the whole idea behind health insurance (whether public or private)...
(Never mind the "health care expenses" being ridicously overblown in the US to begin with through pure corporate greed)
> Emotions aren’t valid indicators of reality.
The propaganda of Big Health is even less...