They’re both bad, but at least the hospital provides a service for its money. The insurance company makes all of its money finding ways to not pay for services someone else provides.
The thing is, insurance is generally a good thing, it is basically the easiest way to make sure a group of people can afford healthcare in a free market. I would personally prefer if we had a single payer system, medicare for all, or some other way for everyone to receive high quality healthcare on demand that isn’t driven purely by the profit motive.
So its not the industry per se, it is the profit motive that drives those industries, and the political corruption that extends from big monied interests that wield our legislatures and gut any regulatory backstop to prevent these disgusting schemes to swindle every penny out of regular people who are just trying to survive and thrive in an unfair, unjust system.
I’m not sure I can agree that insurance is the easiest way. The other, more sane, systems require the same amount of administrative overhead at worst, function the same way, cost less, and are vastly easier to comprehend and predict.
Insurance without the profit motive is one of the universal healthcare schemes. It’s the industry part of the insurance industry that’s problematic, and the medical insurance industry in particular because with other insurance types, you can usually pause and be a rational actor. Medical situations often don’t give you that option, and sometimes you don’t even get to pick the things you’re supposed to be rational about. Without the ability to choose, caveats and conditions just make insurance bankruptcy pachinko.
Well, I’m no expert but ive heard convincing arguments. Step one is wrestling control of healthcare out of the hands of for-profit companies. By the time we do that we will have worked out a better way to do it, democratically and for the benefit of all people, not just the profit of the few
They’re both bad, but at least the hospital provides a service for its money. The insurance company makes all of its money finding ways to not pay for services someone else provides.
The thing is, insurance is generally a good thing, it is basically the easiest way to make sure a group of people can afford healthcare in a free market. I would personally prefer if we had a single payer system, medicare for all, or some other way for everyone to receive high quality healthcare on demand that isn’t driven purely by the profit motive.
So its not the industry per se, it is the profit motive that drives those industries, and the political corruption that extends from big monied interests that wield our legislatures and gut any regulatory backstop to prevent these disgusting schemes to swindle every penny out of regular people who are just trying to survive and thrive in an unfair, unjust system.
I’m not sure I can agree that insurance is the easiest way. The other, more sane, systems require the same amount of administrative overhead at worst, function the same way, cost less, and are vastly easier to comprehend and predict.
Insurance without the profit motive is one of the universal healthcare schemes. It’s the industry part of the insurance industry that’s problematic, and the medical insurance industry in particular because with other insurance types, you can usually pause and be a rational actor. Medical situations often don’t give you that option, and sometimes you don’t even get to pick the things you’re supposed to be rational about. Without the ability to choose, caveats and conditions just make insurance bankruptcy pachinko.
Well, I’m no expert but ive heard convincing arguments. Step one is wrestling control of healthcare out of the hands of for-profit companies. By the time we do that we will have worked out a better way to do it, democratically and for the benefit of all people, not just the profit of the few