No.486494
The US federal government and health insurers aren't the main ones charging most citizens extortionate prices for basic life necessities, including healthcare and housing.
Those charging such are simply… those who charge such: specifically banks, pharma companies, average land/homeowners, doctors etc
When you get a bill for a $400 doctor visit where no tests or equipment was used, that's not insurance's fault, that's the doctors fault for charging you $400 for 15 minutes.
That's a near universal practice, and every point of sale actor tries to point the finger at another as the source of extortionate prices. But no one is forcing them to buy expensive malpractice insurance, lavish offices, inflated tech service contracts, unnecessary equipment purchase, and their own lavish lifestyles.
The issue is, any of them could simply… not charge extortionate prices.
Private health insurance is a joke, but they aren't the root issue. The root issue are the doctors, landowners, homeowners, pharmaceutical companies, and other point of sale groups and individuals charging extortionate prices.
I'm not saying this to point to individuals as the issue, but rather the class those who provide or own expensive life necessities. There's a reason early unions mostly disallowed doctors from joining.
Also, on a tangent, most pushing for "universal health insurance" aren't really pushing for insurance, but a free, or near free private health care, paid by the government. Private insurance usually means you pay out the ass in the case of an unlikely event, it's was never meant to be a safety net for routine care.
>>
No.486496
>>486494>Also, on a tangent, most pushing for "universal health insurance" aren't really pushing for insurance, but a free, or near free private health care, paid by the government.This isn't really accurate - the difference between what the US has now and
Medicare-for-All is that the current model is largely a private insurance scheme and the proposed changes involve expanding the one major public insurance sector to cover everyone.
>Private health insurance is a joke, but they aren't the root issue. The root issue are the doctors, landowners, homeowners, pharmaceutical companies, and other point of sale groups and individuals charging extortionate prices.The difference between the doctors and the insurers is that the doctors do, at least, provide a material service. It's true that the pharma cartels need thwacking, but the insurance cartels are much more difficult to redeem in popular consciousness than doctors because the insurance cartels are as extortionate but largely only serve as middlemen.
>>
No.486498
>>486496Another difference between doctors and insurance is that doctors are the ones charging the extortionate prices for their care because they set their prices
you didn't get my other point, insurance means paying out the ass to cover an unlikely or rare event. the "insurance for all" proposals, aren't really insurance because they propose more or less free care due to the size and frequency of the subsidies
>>
No.486499
>The issue is, any of them could simply… not charge extortionate prices.
As owners they have the GOD-GIVEN RIGHT of charging you whatever they want and if you don't like it you can go to a competitor g-d bless.
Or so that's the logic that free market zealots use. The reality is that this tendency will create friction (at best) with a big number people until something gives. But I think everybody here knows that.
>>
No.486505
Doc: ok Bobby your surgery is over, it took about an hour, are you feeling ok?
Bobby: yes.
Doc: That'll be $300,000
Bobby: And the health insurers won't pay for it! Those damn dirty bastards. I hate the insurers so much, they're practically villains.
>>
No.486514
I think OP is conflating 2 different things.
The CEOs of insurance companies are in the hot-seat because they made it a "business-model" to deny health-care. It's not reasonable to deny health-care to people. The acceptable debate-spectrum is entirely contained in how to provide health-care, not whether to provide health-care.
You're looking a bit like you're trying to deflect attention to get CEOs out of the hotseat.
I don't know enough about health-care to speak intelligently about cost efficiency. But from the point of view of a layperson it seems that this discussion starts with funding for medical research, there seems to be a funding bias towards perpetual treatments rather than one time cures.