• Kalysta@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    7 days ago

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

  • manicdave@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days 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.

  • ArnaulttheGrim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    7 days 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.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 days ago

    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!”

  • Mr. Zeus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Any company that promises goods and/or services in exchange for money that takes your money in exchange said goods and/or services and then doesn’t deliver services or goods is a scam

  • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days 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.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Well, what about the contract? Traditionally, contracts have three main elements: Offer, acceptance, and consideration. That is, one party offers something, the counter-party accepts the offer, and there’s an exchange of something of value between them. It ought to be obvious to even the most casual observer that there’s a lot to unpack about acceptance. Clearly, the party accepting the offer should understand the offer in order for the contract to be valid.

        If I offer the neighborhood cats treats in exchange for not digging up my plants, and they accept, that doesn’t give me a cause of action to sue them (or their owners) for breach of contact when they still dig up my plants. A cat cannot lacks the understanding of the offer, and cannot accept, and therefore no contact exists.

        Similarly, if a human lacks the mental capacity to understand an offer—say, a person deep in dementia agrees to a reverse mortgage without knowledge of their legal guardian—a court can rule that no contract existed, because the person did not understand the offer.

        Health insurance contracts are anything but clear. In fact, the Byzantine details surpass the ability of most people to understand. (Part of my job in the past was getting paid to read and interpret health benefit statements for other people. Quick— what’s ERISA, and what are the legal implications of health insurance vs. health benefit plans?) Is it really a valid contract, if people can’t even begin to understand the offer?

        One might say that people should get an attorney to look it over. Yeah, and then what? Counter-offer? We don’t have much leverage to do so, because the terms of all of the offers are bad, and opting out of health coverage entirely is not a good option. (Even the healthiest person could get hit by a car and be financially ruined for life.)

        That’s the source of the anger. We can understand how insurance is supposed to work: Pay premiums to mitigate risk. Instead, these companies hide all manner of gotchas in contract terms we have no hope of understanding. Traditionally, that would not be a valid contract, but the legal system seems to exist to serve the powerful, so it enforces them anyway. (Even then, the insurance companies try to avoid fulfilling what seem like their clear obligations because sick people lack the wherewithal to fight them.)

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Maybe you missed the post I replied to which said “there should be no denials at all.” You’re right that it’s all rigged against the insureds that wasn’t really the point though. Obviously it doesn’t cover every single thing.

  • onnekas@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    I would assume that I actually get a coffee when I go to Starbucks and pay for it.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        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.

  • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 days 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.

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    189
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

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

    • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      7 days 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.

    • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days 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.

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days 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.

    • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 days 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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days 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.