Real life examples?
*youâre
The wording in the summary is already deceitful.
âWhose business model depends on turning down payments for care recommended by doctors for their patientsâ.
This is 100% true, but ignores the dynamic of doctors driving costs, and contractual limitations.
It should read along the lines of âwhose business model insures client insurance carriers pay based on contractual agreement, while doctors refuse to reduce cost for patients on treatments outside of agreed upon coverageâ.
1 Like
So much for employee ownership of companies.
And denying them care facilitates this.
Mostly in America.
Enter in single-payer that doesnât bankrupt individuals trying to save the life of their own child.
And there we have it.
Youâre forgetting they both receive medical care. One gets treated, the other gets a state sponsored suicide.
1 Like
Or we could just join the rest of the civilized world and go the way of single-payer.
1 Like
Dude, thatâs what Iâm pointing out to you right now.
The UK has a massive shortage of healthcare. This results in all kinds of bad patient outcomes, including preventable deaths.
Who should be getting the bullet behind the back?
3 Likes
Itâs clear across posts you donât understand complexity so this may be a moot point but in countries where socialized medicine occurs, the cost of care isnât decreasing. At all. The method of payment simply shifts.
And to @twojarslaveâs point, people are still denied care.
So to really fight the man youâll need to kill poor people, again. And healthcare professionals.
2 Likes
Again, this doesnât decrease cost of care. Youâre literally describing the poor people problem.
Kill them, and then we have it.
Is the cost of âhealthcareâ in America decreasing?
Explain.
He knows the answer.
2 Likes
And who spends the most on healthcare? Or is this too complex to understand?
The argument that insurance owes because they made profit is flawed.
They owe because they are contractually obligated to pay per contractual obligations. This is the end.
The idea that profit should be lower in favor of expanding coverage is fine to discuss but end of day insurance companies are operating based on mutually agreed upon contracts, especially now that ACA required participation is over.
ACA and other socialized programs do not reduce cost. They draw payment from tax revenue, and still subsidize the actual costs.
If you want to see greater distribution of premium payments to coverage, join a private network. These legally exist, operate like a co-op and typically do not realize profit.
Or pay out of pocket. Which brings about the weirdly secondary point that cost will still be astronomical, because again it isnât the insurance companies driving cost. Theyâre literally solving for it.
1 Like
Are you intentionally emphasizing my point?
I swear when I first rejoined these boards I thought maybe you and Zecarlo were one and the sameâŠ
What do you not understand?
Where does the money come from to pay for medical care? Or are you under the impression doctors work for free in socialized countries?
Your thread is incorrect from the title. People did not strike back at the healthcare industry. They struck the insurance industry in a misguided attack on healthcare industry sentiment.
I saw him in A Knights Tale!
I didnât know he was also a writer.
Lol.
The blame for the death spiral of the health insurance issue lies with Obama"Care".
The blame for Obama"Care" lies withâŠhmmm.
Ergo, the point of this thread is reallyâŠhmmm -cue the intelligence computer algorithms!
Perfectly stated.
1 Like