• manicdave@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 minutes ago

    It doesn’t have to be a solemn vow. The definition of insurance is that it’s a guarantee. If it’s denying claims it’s technically not even providing insurance.

  • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    If that’s the tack he wants to take with his argument, than in fact that opposite is true.

    They’re a business. You provide them money and they provide a service. So in that respect, there should be no such thing as denial of service for ANYTHING because you’ve already paid for it.

  • Kalysta@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Not giving you the coverage you pay for is theft. When are we going to normalize that and start putting CEOs in jail?

  • ArnaulttheGrim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Insurance is defined at its core as a transfer of risk. Its that simple. If insurance denies everything I send their way while I am paying them, its no longer a transfer of risk, I am simply paying someone to tell me ‘no’.

    That out of the way, the whole health insurance industry does not follow the concept of transfer of risk. The insurance companies rather follow the concept of transfer of action. Basically I am not going to spend all day negotiating with a hospital. That said, them denying is because they do not want to do the work still, so in other words, I am still paying someone to tell me ‘no’.

    In both concepts, the insurance companies are not doing what they ascribed to. Along with the laws that congress stripped away affordable care to its basics that we all are required to have it - read an extra tax but to corporations who give kick backs to their congressional lackeys - and the fact that insurance companies basically are price fixing all the rates and such, it becomes a lose (you)/lose (you)/lose (hospitals)/only ones who win are the companies.

    Late stage capitalism hard at work.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Mike is not wrong. In fact, he’s very clearly laying out why insurance companies should not exist.

    I’m not sure that was the argument he was trying to make though.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      he’s very clearly laying out why insurance companies should not exist.

      He’s laying the case for why insurance must either operate as a public loss-leader or a privatized scam. But I don’t think he really understands the bottom layer of the argument.

      All I’m seeing is “Insurance is business. Business need to make money. Therefore denying claims is good aktuly.” There’s no “ah ha” bit at the end where he recognizes their predatory nature.

    • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Do you guys think politicians have a duty to adhere to their campaign promises? They’re not under oath. They have no responsibility to improve anyone’s life. They’re a business to win votes to alter policy in their favour.

  • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Crowd sourcing heathcare funds and taking bets on who gets sick sounds great but only if it’s some capitalist Rube Goldberg Machine. Otherwise that’s communism.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    10 hours ago

    UnitedHealth Group is so vertically integrated that, in fact they do own doctors, hospitals and pharmacies under the Optum brand. So yes, they do have a duty to take care of people even if they act like they don’t.

  • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    14 hours ago

    it’s a business that helps you pay your bills

    Quite the opposite, it’s a business that makes your bills expensive.

  • drolex@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Yeah, similarly, Burger King doesn’t have to give you the whopper you’ve paid for. BK employees didn’t take an oath to feed you whoppers. They only have taken an oath to the managers, who have taken an oath to the CEO, who has taken an oath to Friedrich Hayek and the shareholders to make shitloads in dividends, as is their social responsibility. Everything is working just fine in our society thanks to these nice concepts.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Burger King doesn’t have to give you the whopper you’ve paid for.

      The analogy breaks down because BK has an immediate cash-for-commodity relationship with the clients. If you had BK a $5 and they don’t give you a sandwich, you stop going.

      But insurance takes your $5 up front in exchange for assuming the risk that you might need care in the future. You keep giving UHC $5 day after day and week after week, receiving nothing tangible in exchange. It is only when the risk materializes, at the moment you need care, that you ask UHC for money back and they say “No”.

      This leads some people to advocate for health savings accounts as a replacement for private insurance. But then you have to deal with the possibility of a medical claim that exceeds your balance. So you get conversations about risk-pooling. But that just takes you back around to insurance companies again.

      All of this is in an effort to discourage people from implementing public free-at-point-of-use health care (a la the NHS). The idea that we would simply have hospitals you can go to when you’re sick, in the same way we have elementary schools to go to when you’re young or fire departments to go to when you are on fire, is so totally alien to the hyper-individualist profit-fixated neoliberal capitalist that it never seems to come up in conversation.

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    181
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    Without realizing it, Mike Beasley makes a great argument for why private, for-profit health insurance shouldn’t exist.

    • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      As some who has no clue who Mike Beasley is, that seems like a perfectly legitimate Interpretation. A lot of people, like the one he is replying too, knowingly or not are defending the existing system and the existence of health insurances companies.

      I mean, forget about health for a second: we all know insurance companies fucking suck, and they are essentially just a symptom of a shitty system. So why are we fighting/wishing/hoping for them to be run better/more empathetically instead of wanting a different system?

      I think the his comment can be seen as a call-out of how some people are missing the root of the issue.

    • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      17 hours ago

      It’s like all the media that think they are defending Brian Thompson by saying he was less horrible than the average healthcare CEO. Sometimes I wonder if they are making an argument for resurrecting the guillotine industry.