The health insurance CEO and the backlash.

Welp, so much for taking a break from the news. 

As you have likely heard by now, the chief executive officer of UnitedHealthcare was shot to death Wednesday morning in midtown Manhattan, outside the hotel where the company's annual investor conference was to start a couple of hours later. The assailant is still at large.

That's all I'm going to say about the murder. Feel free to google for more info; details, breathless updates, and social media rumors have been rife since it happened. 

(This story even eclipsed a school shooting that happened in California Wednesday afternoon. Although since only three people died -- two kids and the shooter, who killed himself -- it doesn't even qualify as a mass shooting. I only found out about the school shooting on social media, from friends who were commenting on the difference in coverage between the two incidents.)

The most interesting reaction to the UnitedHealth story has been to the company's social media posts about the CEO's death. Every last reaction has been a laughing emoji -- at least 77,800 on its post on the dead bird app.

While I don't condone violence in any form, I've gotta say that I get why people are laughing. UnitedHealthcare reportedly has the highest rate of claim denials in the country. And a congressional subcommittee report released this fall has taken insurers to task for using AI to deny more Medicare Advantage claims than ever. 

artursz | Deposit Photos

In short, people are undeniably angry. They're forced to pay for health insurance, and when they have to use it, the insurance company has the power to decide whether to pay for their doctor-ordered care -- on the basis of cost alone.

This happened to me several years ago. My doctor at the time had put me on a new medication called Januvia for my diabetes. She gave me a batch of samples, and they worked well. But when she wrote me a prescription, my health insurance at the time refused to pay for it; they wanted me to try other, cheaper medicines first. Those, of course, didn't work. Eventually my insurer did cover Januvia, but the whole thing was pretty frustrating, not to mention ridiculous.

This wasn't life or death for me -- just annoying. But it's not hard to imagine how people who are in life-or-death situations must feel when they're placed in this sort of situation. It's heartbreaking, and so unnecessary. And everybody knows it's all about the bottom line for shareholders.

Which is what probably inspired the CEO of UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of UnitedHealthcare, to issue a message to its employees via video. (Apologies for the Vanity Fair dunning notice at the link; I have access to the magazine via Apple News, which didn't charge me extra for it.) In the video, Andrew Witty called the open-season on his company a result of "aggressive, inappropriate and disrespectful" media coverage of the murder. He goes on to tell his workers, "I'd encourage you to tune out that critical noise that we're hearing right now. It does not reflect reality." The reality, he says, is that "the health system needs a company like UnitedHealth Group." He also says, "We guard against the pressures that exist for unsafe or unnecessary care to be delivered, in a way that makes the whole system too complex and ultimately unsustainable."

You might have noticed that he left out the part where companies like his add to the "too complex and ultimately unsustainable" nature of healthcare in this country. In fact, UnitedHealthcare has been in trouble with the federal government: among other things, the Justice Department launched an antitrust investigation into the parent company in November. And there's been class-action suit filed against UnitedHealthcare over shenanigans related to denials of coverage for its Medicare Advantage customers.

On social media yesterday, I called health insurance a remora -- a parasitical creature that feeds off its host, improving the life of nobody but itself. These companies' whole reason for being is to take in premiums and keep as much of that money for their executives and shareholders as possible -- and they do it by denying payment for services that doctors order for their patients.

It's a miserable system, and Congress could end it by enacting Medicare for All.

I'm not holding my breath.

***

These moments of bloggy disgust have been brought to you, as a public service, by Lynne Cantwell. Stay well!

Taking a news breather.

 

Lucian3D | Deposit Photos

Adweek reported on Friday that for the week prior, according to Nielsen, the three top cable news channels -- Fox, CNN, and MSNBC -- continued to see a drop in viewership compared to prior to the election early last month. While Fox News is still blowing away its rivals (as it has done for the past two decades) with a 72% share of the prime-time audience, Adweek says, "MSNBC and CNN received below 20% of the share across both dayparts, a trend that has remained constant since Election Night." Among adults ages 25-54, CNN attracted 79,000 sets of eyeballs during prime time to 60,000 for MSNBC.  

If the ratings news held a bright spot for MSNBC, it was that viewership dropped way less during the week of November 18th than it had the previous week, after morning hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski admitted they'd gone down to Mar-a-Lago to kiss Trump's ring. But overall, MSNBC viewership during prime time has dropped by 52 percent since November 5th.

Those dismal figures came on the heels of a report that Comcast is thinking of selling MSNBC (and Elon Musk has trolled that he's interested in buying it).

What's going on? It could just be a post-election ratings dip for the losing side. It's happened in previous elections, to both left- and right-leaning media. And this election loss was particularly disheartening to folks on the left. We'd seen this farce before, and we were sure the American people wouldn't want to live through it again -- and yet, here we are.

So folks are turning off the news on their TVs and the notifications on their phones -- for a couple of reasons. The Washington Post (free article at the link) quoted one MSNBC viewer as saying he thought the Monday-morning quarterbacking -- "the finger-pointing and bashing of the Democratic party" -- started way too soon. 

Another viewer told WaPo that she's not interested in revisiting the Trump-as-president horror show right now: "'I just don't even want to know what kind of outrageous thing he's going to do,' she says. 'I'm resigned to, "He's going to do outrageous things, and we'll deal with it when he's gone."'"

I hear that. It seemed to me like the media pivoted way too easily, post-election, to listicles of reasons why Harris didn't win. I was not ready for that. I'm still not ready. And having lived through one Trump freak show, it's been hard for me to gin up more than an eyeroll over his Cabinet picks. I know he's going to do outrageous things. Do I need to know the particulars in breathless detail right now?

After all, the holidays are upon us. That means gift shopping and wrapping, cookie baking, holiday concerts, and all the rest. As for TV viewing, well, there's a lot of comfort TV on offer: Christmas rom-coms, Charlie Brown, and the Grinch. And hey, "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" is celebrating its 60th anniversary by coming back to NBC this Friday. That sounds like must-see TV to me!

Does all that seem like escapism? I dunno. To me, it feels more like taking a breather. 

Joe Biden is still president. The country's safe for another seven weeks. Anything can happen in seven weeks. 

Not to say it will. But it could. 'Tis the season for miracles, after all.

***

It seems unlikely to me that I was six years old (technically, a day shy of seven) when ol' Rudolph first flew on NBC. I've always thought I was a year or two younger than that. But I'm trusting the people who actually keep track of such things.

***

These moments of bloggy denialism -- er, I mean news-breather blogginess -- have been brought to you, as a public service, by Lynne Cantwell. Stay safe!

What is gratitude? Part 2.

(American) Thanksgiving is bearing down upon us, and this time of year always encourages people to make public lists of the things they're grateful for. But hardly anyone talks about toxic gratitude. That's what I'd like to tackle in this week's post.

My posts this week and last week were prompted by a post in a private, Pagan Facebook group. Last week's post is here. I'm not naming the original poster because it's a private group. 

***

So: toxic gratitude.

I thought I'd made this phrase up all by myself, but as ever, the internet has beaten me to it. Google's AI stole its definition from this Times of India article, in which toxic gratitude is defined as "expressing thanks without truly meaning it". 

AsierRomeroCarballo | Deposit Photos

The article says you can spot toxic gratitude when it's prompted by social pressure (or, I would add, religious pressure); the result of either being manipulated by someone or by your attempt to manipulate someone; and over-apologizing or over-thanking someone. 

Manipulation is kind of a side trip into gaslighting, which I've talked about before. Go check out those links if you're interested. Today, what I want to look at are social pressure and over-apologizing/over-thanking.

Let's take on over-apologizing/over-thanking first. There's nothing wrong with thanking someone who has done you a favor -- we're all supposed to do that, right? But there's a line. To me, it ought to be a one-and-done. Well, maybe a two-and-done. But thanking me over and over -- or apologizing more than once -- puts the onus on me: I'm constantly being forced to express my gratitude to you for the favor/support/whatever, or to forgive you even if, by your actions, you've done nothing to earn it. (I get in trouble every time I link to that post about forgiveness. Fair warning: my take on the subject is very different from the Christian viewpoint.)

Look, it's not my job to constantly reassure you that you did a good thing or I still love you or whatever. To me, that sounds very much like a you problem. It feels to me like your boundaries aren't stable, and you need for me to reinforce them for you. Not a sign of a healthy relationship. Plus I'm not going to do it.

It's a short step from there to manipulation of the "Say to me this exact thing in this exact way!" variety, which I have no patience for. Or the "Believe everything I believe and hate all the things I hate, or you're part of the problem!" variety, which I also have no patience for (and to be honest, I thought we'd all left that cliqueish crap behind in junior high).

I'm not talking about instances where, for example, a person is spewing hatred and lies and expecting everyone around them to show their loyalty by kissing his ring; of course, that's wrong (not to mention dangerous for our country). I'm talking about interpersonal relationships on a smaller scale: If you want to gather like-minded people around you, you have to accept that some of those people will have opinions that differ from yours. In fact, one sure way to push your friends away is to demand that they behave exactly the way you want them to. That's your insecurity talking. It's a you problem, and one I can't solve for you.

Since we've sort of segued into the topic of social pressure anyhow, let's talk about gratitude journaling. As I said at the outset, 'tis the season to profess what you're grateful for to everyone you know. 

There's a benefit, for sure, in recognizing the good things in your life. But I see a danger in pressuring people to post online a list of stuff they're grateful for. For one thing, most people aren't going to post negative stuff on social media, for obvious reasons. But if you don't express those negative feelings somehow, even privately, or if you're determined to put a positive spin on everything, then you're gaslighting yourself with toxic positivity: "Even the bad stuff has its upside!" And it's a short step from there to... well, selling yourself short. Keeping your light under a bushel basket. Making it your business to make everyone else happy at the expense of your authentic self.

If your life sucks right now, own it. I think there's a lot of wisdom in this quote by a therapist: "When my clients can't summon a genuine feeling for gratitude in their lives and the activity of gratitude journaling feels superficial and dismissive of their real experiences, I invite them to appreciate the crap for what it is -- crap."

Sometimes life is crap. Sugar-coating it just gives you sugar-coated crap. The only healthy way out is through. 

***

These moments of bloggy gratitude for those who read this post all the way to the end have been brought to you, as a public service, by Lynne Cantwell. Happy Thanksgiving!

What is gratitude? Part 1.

trombax | Deposit Photos

In a Pagan group on Facebook this week, another member (I'm not using her name because it's a private group) posted some questions meant to get at the heart of this topic: "What is gratitude?" She said she's not looking for reasons why gratitude is important; she's more interested in delving into the things that we call gratitude. More of a deconstruction; less of an admonishment.

Here we are in mid November, and gratitude season -- aka Thanksgiving -- is nearly upon us. So I told her I would tackle a few of her questions here on the blog.

One of the problems she sees -- and I see it, too -- is that the concept of gratitude has been infiltrated by what she calls "unhealthy impostors". Here's an example: What if you're giving something out of the goodness of your heart, but the person you're giving the thing to says they don't want it? 

Let's say your workplace or church has a food drive for the poor, or you attend an event where the admission price is a can of something for the local food pantry. So you do what a lot of us do: You bring a box or two of Kraft Mac & Cheese and a couple of cans of tuna and throw them in the collection box. You've done a good thing, right?

Maybe; maybe not. What if the person who gets your donation is diabetic? Lactose intolerant? Has celiac disease? Those are all legitimate health issues. But if the person you're donating to says "no thank you" to your offering -- for whatever reason -- do you think of them as ungrateful?

We haven't even gotten into how someone is supposed to make blue-box mac and cheese without milk and butter. Butter's tough without refrigeration, but dry milk is definitely a thing.

Then, too, poor people are people, with likes and dislikes. When I worked at the big DC law firm, we had partner offices overlooking Murrow Park on Pennsylvania Avenue NW. One late afternoon, one of the partners said to me, "It's funny, isn't it? There's always a flock of seagulls that show up and fly around the park every day at about this time."

"Maybe that's why," I said, pointing out his window and down. A van from one of the charities that feed the homeless was parked at the curb, and volunteers inside were handing out sandwiches to street people -- and some of the street people were sharing their sandwiches with the birds. 

Say what you will about seagulls, but they know a meal ticket when they see one.

It wasn't just the partner's cluelessness that has stuck with me about that scene. It was seeing people who had little or nothing themselves sharing their dinner with birds. I wondered why. Were they not hungry? Seemed unlikely. Did they not like the sandwiches? We were about ten floors up, so I couldn't tell what they were made from, but there was definitely white bread involved. No idea what the filling was, or whether they came with any condiments. A slice of cheese? A piece of wilted lettuce? Maybe a wan tomato slice? I didn't know. Maybe they were just bologna and bread.

Maybe people were tired of bologna and bread. 

How did the volunteers in the van feel about seeing their hard work going to the seagulls? I don't know the answer to that, either.

But I could understand the feelings of everyone involved: The volunteers, who were doing their best with whatever donations, both food and cash, they received; the street people, who were probably hungry, but maybe not for that; the birds, who were doing bird things; and maybe even the partner, who I'm sure donated to charities of his choice. (As do I.)

Is it necessary to expect gratitude when you gift someone something they didn't ask for? I don't think it is. I think it's better to ask what the person needs or wants. Even if they're poor.

And I think it's important to not fault a person who doesn't want what you're offering. Even if they're poor.

Because that makes the giving more about you than it does about the people you're trying to help.

***

These moments of bloggy gratitude have been brought to you, as a public service, by Lynne Cantwell. Stay safe!