A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
https://mas.to/@MikeBeas/113666556469008087
EDIT: I think you should get the service you pay for, just so that's clear.
I think that if money exchanges hands, it's part of a deal that must be honored by the other party.
They're getting very close to saying the quiet part aloud, and the quiet part is...
"Everyone except for the .0001% exists for the service of said .0001%, and the fact that you have any self-respect or value for your lives is a failing on your part peon!"
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.
I would assume that I actually get a coffee when I go to Starbucks and pay for it.
Not giving you the coverage you pay for is theft. When are we going to normalize that and start putting CEOs in jail?
Only after revolution, share holders run the country, they wont allow us to cut into their grossly unnecessary wealth, they would rather we die.
Oblige them
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.
What about the contract?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't care what that guy thinks.
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.
The customers of insurance companies are shareholders.
That's not what a share holder is
You misunderstand. The service that insurance companies provide is one that is for shareholders. It's a way of allocating and rationing medical care while also keeping business going.
Poor people don't own hospitals. Poor people can't develop medicines and medical equipment. Can't train and hire doctors. That stuff is extremely expensive. The capital class owns that stuff, right?
They aren't just going give it away are they? But they do need a labor force that, though desperate, isn't too sickly that their labor can't be exploited.
The service that health insurers provide to their actual customers, the capital class, is to reallocate the aforementioned expenses back onto workers by way of premiums and limiting care to the bare minimum.
This is why health insurance is tied to employment in America. You (most likely) didn't hire your health insurer and negotiate your insurance contract, your employer did. It's not for you, it's for them, and really, for their owners, who extract the value of your healthy labor from your employer.
And this isn't come an-cap or communist hot take, this is just the economics of how healthcare works in America. You're getting the care, sure, and if you're covered hopefully you're in the road to recovery and won't become insolvent due to medical debts, but this system is not for your benefit. It's not out to save you money. You are at best an afterthought, a concept of a customer. More of a number.
The OOP described is, in different terms, as if health insurer was nothing more than a risk pool cooperative.
Here are the customers of UNH:
They also own the hospital groups, the device makers, and the pharmaceuticals.
it's a business that helps you pay your bills
Quite the opposite, it's a business that makes your bills expensive.
This gaslighting won't work anymore
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.
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.
I'm launching my burger insurance company
Didn't Domino's do a stupid Pizza insurance thing?
Without realizing it, Mike Beasley makes a great argument for why private, for-profit health insurance shouldn't exist.
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.
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.
"It's a business" is not a justification for evil, and yet that's always how the phrase is used.
The very concept of paying for health care through insurance is evil.
Why do we even allow a profit motive to deny health care? Should be straight up illegal.
It’s my understanding that health insurance companies hire doctors, who have taken the hypocritical oath, to review claims and deny them.
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.
Insurance is a racket. Is that what Lil Mikey is saying?
You know... that kinda vow would be a great idea! Doctors take an oath like thing too, right?