This is probably makes a good case for open sourcing all governing algorithms
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
601 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
59055 readers
3180 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Ah, the 'the system said it was so, so it had to be so' excuse.
Same stance the UK Post Office took with Horizon. A fucking stupid stance...
Alright team, I'm bringing the opposite opinion to this thread. Bring your pitchforks.
Two things :
-
Hanlon's razor. Consultants are not mensa candidates. They are ordinary people who sometimes do a shit job.
-
Complexity. Each state has its own wildly complex eligibility and availability rules. Each insurer within each state, equally so. As much as this article shits on Deloitte for having 20+ state contracts, that doesn't mean 1 common platform / common solution. People within the fediverse - being somewhat more tech inclined - should have some empathy for this
I hate Deloitte as much as the next guy, but why no hatred for the politicians (or special interest groups comprised of insurers) that wrote opaque state-based legislation? Speaking of insurers, why no hate for them? Whether private or public - they literally have a vested interest in denying coverage...
If we are going to throw stones, let's find the right villain.
I see we have a consultant in our midsts.
The complexity is the point. The less people willing or able to jump through all the necessary hoops to receive their healthcare through the system, the less money they have to pay out. Adding more complexity in the form of yet another opaque approval system adds many more hoops to get through, which is actually the entire purpose of that system. Deloitte knew this going in.
Yes, I have sympathy for the individuals who have to build this system, however I have absolutely zero sympathy for the company that put it into practice.
Yes, the medicare system is needlessly complex, however Deloitte decided to replace manpower with cheaper automation which had the side effect of saving them work by increasing rejections.
The world also happens to be complex. Enough so that both things can be true.
Seems the same with State unemployment benefits too, just maybe not as deadly.
Agree with all your points. I just wanted to remind people to hate the architect (in this case politicians and insurers), not just the coder.
Who's not hating insurers? They're awful.
The “algorithmic system” didn’t design and build itself. What a bullshit cop-out.
Deloitte should be liable for the medical bills of patients who it wrongly denied coverage for.
They saved money by skipping QA, they can pay for the fallout of their bugs.
Or, how about a small fine. Maybe 5% of the extra profit they made in this scam and they don't even have to stop or admit wrong doing
^ this is what will likely happen
God damn right. They want to outsource jobs AND cause people harm due to their ignorance?? (lead pipes, lead paint, asbestos, need I say more)
Fuck that.
I agree.
I also wish Deloitte would stop winning contracts to build their shitty, cobbled together tech solutions for pennies (to the contractors) on the dollar. Their track record for such activity is actually kinda garbage in the industry.
Will keep happening as long as contracts are awarded based on flashy proposals.
From your fingers to the will of the people.
Bro... This is America, these guys never get in trouble for anything
That's the distinction between "should" and "will"
They are liable but nobody will enforce the law because fuck plebs
Why would they get in trouble when they are meeting the goals of the program?
Kicking people out of Medicare is the point. Whether they're supposed to be on the program is a secondary concern.
Exactly.
Yup.