this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
456 points (87.9% liked)

Political Memes

5615 readers
1668 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hexadence@lemmy.world -2 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

In a system where insurance doesn’t exist but the government also doesn’t fund it, each individual person would be financially crippled with debt if anything ever went wrong.

  1. No. If the insurance didn't create the atmosphere of territorial turfing, prices would be naturally set by competition. They would be much more accessible.

  2. Let us not forget the amount of claims that get denied in order to guarantee financial solvency for the middleman parasites.

.

Ideally, we would elect representatives who want all healthcare funded through the government.

Yeah. Let's just support this nonsense by printing more money. /s

If you avoid paying a racket, you’ll also get the mother of all fines, because they’re gonna break your fucking legs.

Direct violence is out of fashion. Now it is all about systematic financial crippling into homelessness and starvation.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 5 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

No. If the insurance didn’t create the atmosphere of territorial turfing, prices would be naturally set by competition. They would be much more accessible.

Hospitals aren't very competitive. Theres maybe 1 in a large town and that's it. Small practices are already competitive. You do have a point about insurance companies intentionally driving costs up, but the hospital networks themselves have even more say and the only way to take that power away is having regulators set the prices and not the providers.

Let us not forget the amount of claims that get denied in order to guarantee financial solvency for the middleman parasites.

Average 18% denied, less than a percentage of denied claims appealed. So 82% of claims get covered.

Yeah. Let’s just support this nonsense by printing more money. /s

Actually, as I mentioned, the government would spend less than they currently do.

Direct violence is out of fashion. Now it is all about systematic financial crippling into homelessness and starvation.

Because nobody ever wins with direct violence. Everyone loses.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

If the insurance didn’t create the atmosphere of territorial turfing, prices would be naturally set by competition. They would be much more accessible.

Healthcare suffers from several very competition distorting Economic effects.

  • The so called "expert advantage", which is the situation were the buyer doesn't have the expertise to judge the quality of the service the seller is offering.
  • That buyers are willing to pay just about anything to survive, so unlike pretty much everything else the upper limit to prices is incredibly high (basically, everything a person has plus how much debt they can take in).
  • As somebody else pointed out, healthcare service provision is geographically constrained for a lot of things, the more urgent the situation the worse it gets, so for example if you have an accident and your life is in danger, if there is only one Hospital in town that's were the ambulance will take you, so you literally have no choice.
  • The cost and time to train medical professionals as well as of the equipment, means that for anything beyond simple clinics there is a high barrier to entry into that market.

Unlike the ideological pseudo-magical fantasy bullshit that some politicians spew about the Free Market in order to defend certain choices of theirs that benefit those who given them millionaire speech circuit fees and non-executive board memberships (namelly to justify privatising things that are in low competition or even natural monopoly markets), Free Market Theory only works for a few markets where there is a natural tendency for competition such as, say, teddy bears or soap, not for markets were there are multiple factors reducing choice and the ability of buyers to judge the quality of what they are buying before they buy it.