|
β¬π¨π¨β¬β¬
β¬β¬β¬π¨π¨
π¨π©β¬π¨π©
β¬π©π©π©π©
π©π©π©π©π©
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 881 4/6
π¨π¨β¬π¨β¬
π¨π©π¨β¬β¬
π¨π©π©β¬π©
π©π©π©π©π©
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 881 3/6*
β¬β¬π¨π¨β¬
π©π¨β¬π¨β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. -Frederick Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's almost like a John Grisham novel.
|
|
|
|
|
They should hold people personally accountable.
Organizations are literally destroying the world and governments be like "but they're companies, so we can't do anything."
Sure, sue companies for damages, which is almost always less than what they made, while the CEO's still get their bonuses.
Lax governments are the only reason people like Zuckerberg or whoever is (or was) CEO at Shell are still doing business instead of having lifelong sentences in jail.
In case of UnitedHealth, people made an active decision to go with this model, make huge profits, and ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) their customers.
It's fraud, theft and in case of a health insurer something like attempted murder at large scale.
|
|
|
|
|
Hell yeah. You nailed it.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Lax governments are the only reason people like Zuckerberg or whoever is (or was) CEO at Shell are still doing business instead of having lifelong sentences in jail.
So what should Zuckerberg be jailed for, exactly?
I'm not saying I disagree. I'm just saying I don't know how to define the specific crime that would lead to his conviction.
|
|
|
|
|
Zuckerberg was an example, but with all the privacy laws Facebook ignored time and again, I'm sure he's bound for some jail time.
I mean, the guy had to defend himself Facebook in front of Congress!
Facebook is accused of illegally harvesting tons of data, influencing elections and even inciting genocide.
Probably not only Zuck, but other board members as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: and even inciting genocide.
Not sure about the rest of that but Facebook the company is not guilty of that.
People that posted on Facebook wanted that.
That is that old nasty freedom of speech problem where everyone wants it for themselves but do not want it for anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
Just saying they're accused, not that they're guilty.
And even if they were guilty, it's not said that certain individuals are guilty.
Maybe their moderation team was understaffed or in disarray for some good reason.
But punishments should be given if there's a leaked internal memo that says "Let's incite genocide today. Cheers, Zuck"
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: But punishments should be given if there's a leaked internal memo that says
What law exactly?
In the US States (not the feds) have laws about incitement to riot. You know standing on a stage and telling people they should go out and hang someone.
But that is about the person that says that. Not the person that built the stage. Or the one that built the microphone. Or the company that built the street that allows the people to congregate.
|
|
|
|
|
One flaw of our corporate laws is that executives are almost always shielded from liability. This needs to change.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly! 
|
|
|
|
|
How exactly?
For example if your 16 year old son kills a neighbor should you go to jail for life? Are you not responsible for your son? If you go to jail does your son go to jail too?
In comparison if a large company has a division chief in India and that person, not the CEO, decides to save some money so his financial picture gets better (kickbacks, promotion, whatever) and decides to dump toxic chemicals in a river should the CEO go to jail?
What if it is just one truck driver who would rather dump in the river, a one hour trip, versus an 8 hour trip to the regulated site and then spend the next 7 hours getting high, should the CEO go to jail for that?
ExxonMobil, as an example, has 60,000 employees. Should the CEO oversee the activities of every single one of them every day? That only allows the CEO 1.4 seconds a day to supervise each one. That is going to make it rather hard to get anything done.
At some point adults, because they are adults, are responsible for their own actions.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Organizations are literally destroying the world
What alternative are you suggesting for humans?
|
|
|
|
|
Well, of course there's the alternative of not destroying the world.
Not sure what you expected 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: there's the alternative of not destroying the world.
How exactly are you suggesting that should happen?
Laws are almost always (perhaps always) enacted in reaction to some behavior that in the past was in fact legal.
In the case cited by the OP the it fails to mention that the number of cases that healthcare companies refuse are already high. AI does not seem to have made that more so. It is just a way to blame something else.
(Myself I have also read of cases where there company should have rejected the claim. For example when someone claims that they should pay for a very high priced experimental therapy that has not even been proven to actually work.)
Unlike what you suggested doing things like the above is not illegal. They are not breaking any law. So only way it can happen in the future is to pass a new law.
Even when liability is found it is often a failure to follow a regulation. Which is a civil not a criminal issue. So it could never result in jail time.
In either case, at least in the US, those who actually are responsible for the failure must still be proven to have done so intentionally (which is also accepted part of the law.) And given the complexities of many laws even figuring out whether something is wrong can be difficult.
So again, what is the exact solution that you are proposing that would prevent problems like this from happening in the future?
--------------------------------------------------------
Myself I recognize that if we could find some very intelligent extraterrestrials or perhaps some elves or angels and we let them run the world then it would be good. But otherwise we are just going to have to muddle through as humans.
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of these companies are fined because they do things that are illegal.
It's just that people are never held personally accountable.
Shell, and maybe some other fossil fuel giants, in the 60's/70's/80's, hid documents that said they were destroying the world and published documents that said the opposite instead.
Unfortuantely, I believe their attempt at mass extinction has expired, so as far as I know they're not even fined.
Facebook massively sold their user's data even though they said they weren't.
They were fined for a record amount.
Same for Tata Steel over here in The Netherlands.
Said they were very careful with toxic waste and fumes.
Turned out they weren't and people who live in close viccinity to the factory have, on average, a shorter lifespan and more cancer than the average Dutch person.
I mean, back then we didn't know about the health risks (although I'm pretty sure they did), but when we learned and asked them to lessen their output, they simply didn't.
As far as I'm concerned ignorance turns into mass murder right there.
I don't care whether it's technically legal.
There's such a thing as "good faith".
Telling your mom you didn't eat the last cookie even though you did isn't punishable (by law, at least).
Telling the world you're not warming up the earth by multiple degrees ultimately causing mass extinction could, maybe, if we try a litte, not be in "good faith" and therefore, punishable.
Of course you could argue we need fuel, we use Facebook and we need steel, and we keep on buying it and using it, so we are to blame (as well).
Unfortunately, it's not like we have a lot of alternatives and we're often kept in the dark.
The solution?
I don't have one, I'll be honest.
Strict government regulation and supervision and personal accountability.
As long as no one is personally accountable there will be very few incentive to change, as long as the money keeps rolling in.
And in that sense, the government has failed us as well, and is often even an accomplice.
|
|
|
|
|
So maybe the AI's 90% error rate is an improvement over UnitedHealth's own people...
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly appears possible. See my other post that states "1 in 7".
|
|
|
|
|
not quite. The article said that 90% of UHC denials were overturned due to faulty logic, not following Medicare coverage laws, not following doctor's specific instructions and endangering the health and welfare of the patient. (Mainly seniors who were in hospice or nursing care to treat long term recoveries for injuries or sickness)
However, the denials were generating hundreds of millions of dollars in claims not paid. So there was no incentive to correct the faulty denials of payment. The upper management of UHC went as far as to threaten, demote and fire employees who were going against the AI generated denials and approving the payments.
In the 1970's and 80's it was the green bar computer printout that overrode people's good sense. "The computer said so." Today it is being replaced by "The AI said so."
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Stachelski 2021 wrote: The article said that 90% of UHC denials were overturned due to faulty logic,...
The article I posted specifically said the following
"But data from state and federal regulators shows that insurers reject about 1 in 7 claims for treatment."
1 in 7 is a higher rejection rate.
And that is based on the non AI process.
modified 21-Nov-23 11:24am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would beg to differ. The article you linked to is a single case where a claim was in question. The article I originally linked to was describing an entire class of senior patients that had coverage, had a valid claim but payments were being denied and questioned by the AI. These patients were recovering from hip fractures, ankle fractures, Pneumonia, Covid. The claim was accepted and the rules said they could have up to 100 days of care to recover. After 7 to 14 days UHC began denial of payments. It would dispute treatments, refuse to talk to doctors, argue with the diagnosis and treatment. This was done not at the start of the claim, which all parties agreed was correct and valid. Families were forced to either pay out of pocket to continue with care or see the senior sent home to make it on their own. The law suit was the result of several patients dying.
While it might be true that management at UHC would have pressured their people to cut care early. It appears that they now point to an AI which is supposed to be infallible and challenge you, your lawyers and doctors to prove otherwise. Meanwhile, no payment and the patient suffers.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
