LOM: I get that you believe insurance companies are gouging people for profit, and to a large extent I agree that they are-- but I disagree that they are doing so out of pure greed or evil intent and that only government can stop them. I think that there are some very concrete reasons why they are doing so (which I have discussed previously).
Yes. The bottom line. Very concrete indeed. These are for-profit institutions. Therefore, their primary concern is not the well-being of the consumer (or would-be consumer) but how much money they stand to make.
To the health insurance companies, life-saving medical care is a commodity. A luxury commodity.
Sick, poor people are not profitable. Therefore, their interests are most likely to be met by NONprofit agencies.
lom: Okay so, I was being facetious when I said "possessed by satan".
No, you'd merely have been "facetious" if you'd been using the term "possessed by satan" as a way of exaggerating your OWN opinion. When you ascribe that exaggeration to someone else's opinion in order to paint their opinion as unreasonable, another word applies.
lom: This is because you keep making emotional appeals about people dying for profit....
I keep talking about denying people life-saving healthcare like it's a BAD thing.
Paft; your statement about treatment being available is meaningless. Nobody is arguing that treatment doesn't exist. lom: It's not meaningless, because this is a key symptom of the problem. Since, this is a discussion about health care, I'm presenting alternative reform possibilities (which have been suggested by conservatives). I believe some of these ideas would do a better job in the long run getting more people affordable access to treatment.
Have the private insurance companies stepped up to the plate for those many, many people who can't afford their premiums? Or those who have pre-existing conditions?
lom: I think that this kind of thing is going to keep happening, more and more, as federal and state governments continue to expand their control on health care, while they go deeper into debt.
Please. This is not a case where someone was backed into a corner and forced to make these cuts. Covering those transplants in Arizona would require a miniscule amount of money compared to other expenditures. Arizona has been the recipient of a great deal of stimulus dollars that could easily have paid for these transplants.
lom: I don't care what letter she has next to her name, I think that it should never be up to people like Jan Brewer in the first place.
But it should be up to insurance executives out to make lots of money?
lom: There have been similar things going on in Hawaii.
The governor of Hawaii recently rescinded the Medicaid coverage of low income people in line for badly needed transplants? When did this happen?
lom: This is all the more reason to put the power back into the private sector, in the hands of people and their doctors, IMHO.
Are private insurance companies stepping up to the plate for those Arizona transplant patients?
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 17/12/10 20:09 (UTC)Yes. The bottom line. Very concrete indeed. These are for-profit institutions. Therefore, their primary concern is not the well-being of the consumer (or would-be consumer) but how much money they stand to make.
To the health insurance companies, life-saving medical care is a commodity. A luxury commodity.
Sick, poor people are not profitable. Therefore, their interests are most likely to be met by NONprofit agencies.
lom: Okay so, I was being facetious when I said "possessed by satan".
No, you'd merely have been "facetious" if you'd been using the term "possessed by satan" as a way of exaggerating your OWN opinion. When you ascribe that exaggeration to someone else's opinion in order to paint their opinion as unreasonable, another word applies.
lom: This is because you keep making emotional appeals about people dying for profit....
I keep talking about denying people life-saving healthcare like it's a BAD thing.
Paft; your statement about treatment being available is meaningless. Nobody is arguing that treatment doesn't exist.
lom: It's not meaningless, because this is a key symptom of the problem. Since, this is a discussion about health care, I'm presenting alternative reform possibilities (which have been suggested by conservatives). I believe some of these ideas would do a better job in the long run getting more people affordable access to treatment.
Have the private insurance companies stepped up to the plate for those many, many people who can't afford their premiums? Or those who have pre-existing conditions?
lom: I think that this kind of thing is going to keep happening, more and more, as federal and state governments continue to expand their control on health care, while they go deeper into debt.
Please. This is not a case where someone was backed into a corner and forced to make these cuts. Covering those transplants in Arizona would require a miniscule amount of money compared to other expenditures. Arizona has been the recipient of a great deal of stimulus dollars that could easily have paid for these transplants.
lom: I don't care what letter she has next to her name, I think that it should never be up to people like Jan Brewer in the first place.
But it should be up to insurance executives out to make lots of money?
lom: There have been similar things going on in Hawaii.
The governor of Hawaii recently rescinded the Medicaid coverage of low income people in line for badly needed transplants? When did this happen?
lom: This is all the more reason to put the power back into the private sector, in the hands of people and their doctors, IMHO.
Are private insurance companies stepping up to the plate for those Arizona transplant patients?