LOL. You can bash the govt for not being accountable, but don’t even try to claim that private companies are all about the customer. They screw the customer frequently too. And insurance is one place the customer doesn’t have a perfect choice - not many of us can just switch to a competitor if we’re not happy with an insurance company.
You haven’t been out in the business world much, have you? In public, a corporate CEO would say he’s working to maximize shareholder value. In private, he’d admit he’s working to maximize his personal income. An insurance company’s customers are effectively captive to it, and are merely cows to be milked. Working *for *them? Uh, no. Their true interests are *antithetical *to those of their customers - they maximize shareholder value and personal income by *not *paying claims.
Anyone who has been on the wrong end of health insurance has experienced this. For instance, a frequent tactic is to deny claims, even though they probably should be covered, and hope the customer doesn’t appeal.
And of course it’s far worse in health insurance, where denial of coverage for urgently needed (or already given) care drastically reduces the resources the customer has to dispute the denial - and in some cases, if the company stalls long enough, the customer goes away. Terminally.
“Working for the customer”. Jesus.
Yeah, I also remember a story about a rash of cancellations where the companies would go back and find some little error on forms or something to deny coverage for major health problems. Maybe I can dig that up.
In other news, used car salesmen announced that their customers rarely complain and they should always be trusted, since they are private industry.
“Those who seek profit are working for their customers,” a spokesman said.
No no no no. They don’t give a shit about their customers after they have the premium. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make the maximum profit possible, which means they need to pay out the least amount possible to their customers.
Other businesses make money by doing more for their customers and convincing those customers to pay for it. Insurance companies make money by doing the least amount possible for the people actually paying. The entire system of for-profit health insurance and hospitals is one of the major drivers in the increase in costs. Primarily the hospitals, but the insurance companies add their share also.
You can do it a lot easier than in a single-payer system.
The other sweet thing about government health care is that if your doctor screws up, you don’t get a big settlement. Private companies are more accountable in every way. When government is in charge, all accountability is lost. No big lawsuits to keep them in check, little in the way of media oversight, and decisions are kept out of the hands of elected officials so as to avoid voters being able to hold them accountable.
The whole purpose of IPAB is to take these decisions out of the hands of elected representatives. To remove the accountability.
Now, as for insurance companies and profit, the dirty little secret that advocates of universal health care don’t like to talk about is that it’s not the insurance companies making the big profits. It’s the providers: doctors, hospitals, medical device makers, drugmakers, etc.
Insurance companies aren’t villainous because they say “no”. They are simply useful foils for Democrats who want that power for themselves.
Single-payer systems often have private options too, as we keep telling you.
Says who? The NHS pays out when doctors screw up. Sometimes in a big way if it’s a big screwup.
Demonstrably wrong. In fact, already demonstrated to be wrong. Private companies are accountable to their shareholders. Not to the customers.
“Little in the way of media oversight”? “No big lawsuits”? Really?
Honestly, I don’t know why I continue to be surprised by the stuff you write anymore.
They’re all raking it in, including the insurance companies. How many of them do you ever hear about having profitability troubles? And who has the biggest and newest buildings in your town.
See above.
Right. So if I pay you money for several years on the promise that if I need it you’ll cover my costs for serious medical treatment, and then when the time comes you do everything in your power to avoid paying while I slowly go bankrupt and/or don’t get the needed treatment and die in pain, that’s not villainous at all. But the “government” is always bad. Have I got that right?
Honestly, adaher, is this how you picture Obamacare? Because that’s how you describe it, and it bears about as much resemblance to reality as Peter’s description does.
Yes, that’s a terrible quality video. I work with what I’ve got.
I’m still amused at just how far the goalposts have shifted.
Yes, adaher is a master of that.
Heck, he didn’t shift the goalposts, he reversed the goals! He blamed liberals for spreading the “death panel” nonsense!
I wasn’t advocating that. I’m not arguing for a public program, just laughing at your mouthing of the standard “private industry is always good” stuff.
So you’re saying the voters never hold elected officials responsible for things the government does? Is that your contention?
(So when the Republicans won the House in 2010, it had nothing to do with the passage of Obamacare?)
To the point that Obamacare is established fact, the law of the land, and isn’t going anywhere any more than Social Security or Medicare are, yes. I’m glad to know that has shifted from abhorrent to amusing to you.
Golden.
It’ belongs in a triangle somewhere between Catch22, 1984 and A Fish Called Wanda.
It’s no more implausible than the idea that the government works for the good of the citizenry.
Anyway, walk me through what happens when IPAB says that Medicare won’t pay for a treatment or drug. Not the political process, I already know how that works. Congress must vote specifically to veto the change, and they have to replace the Medicare changes with changes that save just as much money. We’re assuming that they can’t agree or can’t muster the votes to overturn IPAB.
So what happens when the first elderly patient is denied the drug or treatment?