3 ms·

If the profit from denying medically necessary care is greater than the cost of the penalties for denying that same care, then it is profitable to deny that car

by jgeada 4y ago

If the profit from denying medically necessary care is greater than the cost of the penalties for denying that same care, then it is profitable to deny that care. A fine that is lower than the profit isn't a fine, it is just cost of business. Our regulatory system has totally failed, which is why it is rife with these perverse incentives.

whitemary 4y ago
> Our regulatory system has totally failed, which is why it is rife with these perverse incentives. Our so-called “regulatory system” works precisely as Karl Marx expected it to 150 years ago. The so-called "perverse incentives" are fundamental characteristics of capitalism. The delusion that haunts us originated with the idea that capitalism is not a system but a set of isolated features that we can opt into and out of as we please. Karl Marx showed us 150 years ago that capitalism is in fact a complex system with many contradictions.
- CWuestefeld 4y ago
  Are you under the impression that funding healthcare services via Medicare has even the slightest resemblance to capitalism? I can't think of any industry that is farther away from this. I mean, Medicare is be definition run by the government, and the way that the service providers deal with it is highly controlled by the government. This looks absolutely nothing like a free market, it's entirely the product of socialist control (if I can define "socialism" as "government controls the means of production" rather than outright "owning" it).
  - whitemary 4y ago
    Medicare was enacted as an alternative to the nationalized universal healthcare systems proposed by socialists at the time. The capitalists in charge preferred Medicare because it could appease enough of the domestic population while preserving opportunities to exploit working Americans for a profit. It's as simple as that. And no, your so-called "free market healthcare" fantasy was not considered an option because it was in fact the problem to solve.
    - CWuestefeld 4y ago
      So, again, is it your position that the results we see from Medicare - where the payer is the government itself, and the provider side is operating under extremely tight rules dictated by the government, can be considered representative of how things might play out in a free market? You haven't come out and said so, so I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth. But it seems like you're arguing toward a position: because we can see that government control of the market has resulted in the mess that we call Medicare, we should therefore stomp out any further vestiges of the market and put the government in control of that as well. This doesn't seem like a sane position.

by jgeada 4y ago

whitemary 4y ago

> Our regulatory system has totally failed, which is why it is rife with these perverse incentives. Our so-called “regulatory system” works precisely as Karl Marx expected it to 150 years ago. The so-called "perverse incentives" are fundamental characteristics of capitalism. The delusion that haunts us originated with the idea that capitalism is not a system but a set of isolated features that we can opt into and out of as we please. Karl Marx showed us 150 years ago that capitalism is in fact a complex system with many contradictions.

CWuestefeld 4y ago
Are you under the impression that funding healthcare services via Medicare has even the slightest resemblance to capitalism? I can't think of any industry that is farther away from this. I mean, Medicare is be definition run by the government, and the way that the service providers deal with it is highly controlled by the government. This looks absolutely nothing like a free market, it's entirely the product of socialist control (if I can define "socialism" as "government controls the means of production" rather than outright "owning" it).
- whitemary 4y ago
  Medicare was enacted as an alternative to the nationalized universal healthcare systems proposed by socialists at the time. The capitalists in charge preferred Medicare because it could appease enough of the domestic population while preserving opportunities to exploit working Americans for a profit. It's as simple as that. And no, your so-called "free market healthcare" fantasy was not considered an option because it was in fact the problem to solve.
  - CWuestefeld 4y ago
    So, again, is it your position that the results we see from Medicare - where the payer is the government itself, and the provider side is operating under extremely tight rules dictated by the government, can be considered representative of how things might play out in a free market? You haven't come out and said so, so I apologize if I'm putting words in your mouth. But it seems like you're arguing toward a position: because we can see that government control of the market has resulted in the mess that we call Medicare, we should therefore stomp out any further vestiges of the market and put the government in control of that as well. This doesn't seem like a sane position.