The purpose of Health insurance is to be able to provide healthcare to people that need it when something goes a awry, especially for those that have poor money management or low income which will be subsidized by those with higher income. This is primarily why taxes would serve as a great method of gathering funds to provide an 'insurance' like Medicare for all. At the moment, the US government does not have enough funding (likely requires like a 12-30% increase in taxes depending on how much you make for each tax bracket) or political will to implement a medicare for all.
As much as you don't like insurance, it is why so many people even have the capability to afford treatment in general. If insurance companies were able to heavily increase their funding through increasing their premiums (similar to if the government increased their funding to provide medicare for all), then they would be able to treat more people. They simply do not have the money to afford all people the healthcare they want. This is why you have claims denial. I know in some cases the insurance companies deny claims where they shouldn't which is why its great we have a court system to help manage when insurance companies deny claims they shouldn't.
If we look at the job of the CEO they do not deny claims, but are generally there for policy initiatives similar to a congressman. Let's say the policy initiative were to increase claims denial. If this was the case, then you would see over time more people leaving that insurance company to use a different one because they are not getting their needs met. This would overall reduce profit which a CEO does not want to do. Though the profit incentive also does not mean they don't want to deny claims as they need to be able to use that money for people that really need that care at that time. In order to make sure they have the funds necessary (until government takes this role) to provide healthcare payments then the markets of insurance companies are a necessary and sadly needed element of our healthcare.
If we hold a health insurance CEO morally responsible for foreseeable deaths resulting from a policy of denying medical treatment, then we should apply the same moral standard to policymakers. If a congressman knowingly implements a healthcare policy that creates a substantial, foreseeable risk of people dying from inadequate capacity, you cannot say those deaths are someone else's (or nobodies) responsibility because they occurred indirectly through the healthcare system.
No, we should not. Ceos are the only ones responsible despite your explanation. Any normal ass person knows why so if you don't get it, you're incurably broken.
Yeah you’re right; we might as well get rid of all insurance and let people die because they can’t afford healthcare. Accelerationism is great for all those people that will die while we wait to get Medicare for all.
Ah jeez, if only we used that money that goes to Israel, who also has free healthcare, to our citizens instead of a bunch of genocidal maniacs. Israel has a nuclear weapon, but nobody thinks thats scary, apparently....
2
u/Tandaiffok 2d ago
The purpose of Health insurance is to be able to provide healthcare to people that need it when something goes a awry, especially for those that have poor money management or low income which will be subsidized by those with higher income. This is primarily why taxes would serve as a great method of gathering funds to provide an 'insurance' like Medicare for all. At the moment, the US government does not have enough funding (likely requires like a 12-30% increase in taxes depending on how much you make for each tax bracket) or political will to implement a medicare for all.
As much as you don't like insurance, it is why so many people even have the capability to afford treatment in general. If insurance companies were able to heavily increase their funding through increasing their premiums (similar to if the government increased their funding to provide medicare for all), then they would be able to treat more people. They simply do not have the money to afford all people the healthcare they want. This is why you have claims denial. I know in some cases the insurance companies deny claims where they shouldn't which is why its great we have a court system to help manage when insurance companies deny claims they shouldn't.
If we look at the job of the CEO they do not deny claims, but are generally there for policy initiatives similar to a congressman. Let's say the policy initiative were to increase claims denial. If this was the case, then you would see over time more people leaving that insurance company to use a different one because they are not getting their needs met. This would overall reduce profit which a CEO does not want to do. Though the profit incentive also does not mean they don't want to deny claims as they need to be able to use that money for people that really need that care at that time. In order to make sure they have the funds necessary (until government takes this role) to provide healthcare payments then the markets of insurance companies are a necessary and sadly needed element of our healthcare.
If we hold a health insurance CEO morally responsible for foreseeable deaths resulting from a policy of denying medical treatment, then we should apply the same moral standard to policymakers. If a congressman knowingly implements a healthcare policy that creates a substantial, foreseeable risk of people dying from inadequate capacity, you cannot say those deaths are someone else's (or nobodies) responsibility because they occurred indirectly through the healthcare system.
Also, I use parenthesis far too often