I wonder what the demographics of those employees are, in terms of where they work. Is it a bunch of white collar programmers like most of the people on HN? Does it include a lot of grocery store workers? Does it include older people, whose retirement savings don't allow them to stop working, single parents with children depending on them, etc.
The survey was conducted by Flexjobs, a job listing site focusing on remote positions. I'm not going to give them my contact information to check, but I would guess that it probably overrepresents temporary and entry-level positions at small to medium sized companies, not big-company corporate jobs that don't need to advertise on external job boards. These jobs would be for people with fewer options, less benefits, and more likely to get overworked.
I wouldn't conclude too much from a survey of only 3,000 employees.
Sure, if you have specific information about the people polled and the general makeup of the population, you can extrapolate these results. I didn't see that it's happening here, it's just the results of a specific group who bothered to answer the poll.
Having 3000 responses doesn't automatically mean the results are meaningful. I can poll 5000 Facebook employees and get results that say 100% of them have a vacation plan and 90% of them have taken a day off in the past year.
But not without the court. The court is deeply involved in the pretrial process. The court's rulings will influence if and how much a settlement there will be.
Well, you see, we setup a system of private judges who decide cases like this. And of course, we need to monitor those judges, so we create a system of judge reviewers that, of course, you pay for to figure out if the judge being used is a good judge. But then you also need to make sure the reviewers are legitimate, so we make a private system of meta reviewers to make sure the reviewers are good.
And of course, in case the parties can't agree on the judges we put up a polymarket bet so we can crowd source which of the judges should be picked. And if that's disputed then we go out and hire a private police enforcement force to make sure the other party is complying with our desire for the right judges. Of course, we arm them just to be sure.
They already doing that with AI, rejecting claims at higher numbers than before .
Privatized insurance will always find a way to pay out less if they could get away with it . It is just nature of having the trifecta of profit motive , socialized risk and light regulation .
If you think that insurance companies have "light regulation", I shudder to think of what "heavy regulation" would look like. (Source: I'm the CTO at an insurance company.)
Light did not mean to imply quantity of paperwork you have to do, rather are you allowed to do the things you want to do as a company.
More compliance or reporting requirements usually tend to favor the larger existing players who can afford to do it and that is also used to make the life difficult and reject more claims for the end user.
It is kind of thing that keeps you and me busy, major investors don't care about it all, the cost of the compliance or the lack is not more than a rounding number in the balance, the fines or penalties are puny and laughable.
The enormous profits year on year for decades now, the amount of consolidation allowed in the industry show that the industry is able to do mostly what they want pretty much, that is what I meant by light regulation.
I'm not sure we're looking at the same industry. Overall, insurance company profit margins are in the single digits, usually low single digits - and in many segments, they're frequently not profitable at all. To take one example, 2024 was the first profitable year for homeowners insurance companies since 2019, and even then, the segment's entire profit margin was 0.3% (not 3% - 0.3%).
So it's weird to see folks on a tech site talking about how enormous all the profits are in health insurance, and citations with numbers would be helpful to the discussion.
I worked in insurance-related tech for some time, and the providers (hospitals, large physician groups) and employers who actually pay for insurance have signficant market power in most regions, limiting what insurers can charge.
I agree, and I can see where it comes from (at least at the state level).
The cycle is: bad trend happens that has deep root causes (let's say PE buying rural hospitals because of reduced Medicaid/Medicare reimbursements); legislators (rightfully) say "this shouldn't happen", but don't have the ability to address the deep root causes so they simply regulate healthcare M&As – now you have a bandaid on a problem that's going to pop up elsewhere.
I mean even in the simple stuff like denying payment for healthcare that should have been covered. CMS will come by and out a handful of cases, out of millions, every few years.
So obviously the company that prioritizes accuracy of coverage decisions by spending money on extra labor to audit itself is wasting money. Which means insureds have to waste more time getting the payment for healthcare they need.
I should have been clearer - profit maximization above all else as long it is mostly legal. Neither profit or profit maximization at all cost is nature of everything .
There are many other entity types from unions[1], cooperatives , public sector companies , quasi government entities, PBC, non profits that all offer insurance and can occasionally do it well.
We even have some in the US and don’t think it is communism even - like the FDIC or things like social security/ unemployment insurance.
At some level government and taxation itself is nothing but insurance ? We agree to paying taxes to mitigate against variety of risks including foreign invasion or smaller things like getting robbed on the street.
[1] Historically worker collectives or unions self-organized to socialize the risks of both major work ending injuries or death.
Ancient to modern armies operate on because of this insurance the two ingredients that made them not mercenaries - a form of long term insurance benefit (education, pension, land etc) or family members in the event of death and sovereign immunity for their actions.
That would be illegal though, the goal is do this legally after all.
We also have to remember all claims aren't equal. i.e. some claims end up being way costlier than others. You can achieve similar % margin outcomes by putting a ton of friction like, preconditions, multiple appeals processes and prior authorization for prior authorization, reviews by administrative doctors who have no expertise in the field being reviewed don't have to disclose their identity and so and on.
While U.S. system is most extreme or evolved, it is not unique, it is what you get when you end up privatize insurance any country with private insurance has some lighter version of this and is on the same journey .
Not that public health system or insurance a la NHS in UK or like Germany work, they are underfunded, mismanaged with long times in months to see a specialist and so on.
We have to choose our poison - unless you are rich of course, then the U.S. system is by far the best, people travel to the U.S. to get the kind of care that is not possible anywhere else.
> While U.S. system is most extreme or evolved, it is not unique, it is what you get when you end up privatize insurance any country with private insurance has some lighter version of this and is on the same journey .
I disagree with the statement that healthcare insurance is predominantly privatized in the US: Medicare and Medicaid, at least in 2023, outspent private plans for healthcare spending by about ~10% [1]; this is before accounting for government subsidies for private plans. And boy, does America have a very unique relationship with these programs.
It is more nuanced, for example Medicare Advantage(Part C) is paid by Medicare money but it is profitable private operators who provide the plans and service it a fast growing part of Medicare .
John Oliver had an excellent segment coincidentally yesterday on this topic.
While the government pays for it, it is not managed or run by them so how to classify the program as public or private ?
This is a great application of this quote. Insurance providers have 0 incentive to make their AI "good" at processing claims, in fact it's easy to see how "bad" AI can lead to a justification to deny more claims.
The question is how you define good. They surely want the Ai to be good in the sense that it rejects all claims that they think can get away with rejecting. But it should not reject those where rejection likely results in litigation and losing and having to pay damages.
Hey! It’d be really hard, there’s literally two layers of LLM calls between the partner entries and the main agent, one specifically made to prevent any leaks
I'm not an expert in this field, but "really hard" isn't impossible. I would absolutely not type anything into that box until it was verified by a reputable third-party firm, and subjected to actual attempts to break the data out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_and_Crisis_Lifeline
reply