Comment by titzer
1 day ago
Oh yes, these things are exactly equivalent. Problem is, nothing about the health system's incentives aligns with consumer benefit. The most profitable outcome for an insurer is that everyone pays premiums and never uses any services. The most profitable outcome for hospitals is that they charge maximum prices for every service and yet don't really fix underlying problems or prevent future problems. Hospitals profit the most off patients that need a ton of care and have deep pockets. They lose money on giving care to people who cannot afford it and won't pay. They lose money in the long run when preventive care prevents later catastrophic (and expensive) conditions later. Pretty much all of the profit-maximizing forces in the for-profit system are deeply unethical.
If you're going to tell us that because health care providers and health insurance companies are some kind of magic counterbalance against each other that benefit consumers, uh, nope.
>Pretty much all of the profit-maximizing forces in the for-profit system are deeply unethical.
Are you talking about healthcare specifically or businesses in general? AMD wants to make the best CPUs for the most amount of money. Is that "unethical"?
the question sets up a false dichotomy, unless that was your intent?
For profit fire, military, or police departments result in some very obvious issues, and they would simply be causing maximum distress.
For profit / Not for profit, are all serving the same goal - human well being. We choose for profit models where they would result in surplus, and non profit where its more applicable.
at least thats the theory. Reality is more messed up.
> healthcare specifically
Yes, it is deeply unethical that someone can be bankrupted and become homeless because of a treatable condition because the "market" has decided a price for the service that is astronomical without insurance, while at the same time tying insurance to employment, dividing up insurance markets, and making coverage subject to inscrutable, unappealable decisions made by people sitting behind desks in a completely different part of the country, while the leadership of said organizations and investors make higher profits than ever. It is deeply unethical that a CEO can make tens of millions of dollars--which for most regular people is several lifetimes worth of earnings--in a single year, while dealing in a market that regularly denies coverage to people who then suffer, are financially ruined, and die.
It's not the same as making a better CPU for more money. Not. At. All.
You can also become homeless because the market has decided that rent should cost more than you can afford (in a given area). This involves real estate, equity investing, home insurance, zoning, housing regulation, and banking. Is this equally immoral? How many types of business are similarly immoral?
> Oh yes, these things are exactly equivalent
A: All men are tall, therefore Giannis Antetokounmpo is tall.
B: Your proof is wrong: see this man here, he isn’t tall!
A: Clearly he has nothing in common with Giannis. He’s not even in the NBA!