7 ms·
[flagged]
by Apreche 1y ago
[flagged]
- da_chicken 1y agoAlso known as the, "I got mine. F*** you." philosophy. Maximize exploitation in the short run because by the time the long run comes around, they'll already be dead. It doesn't speak well of their feelings about their own children, but, well, there isn't a lot speaking that well of them in general.
- throw0101a 1y ago> As for people getting sick and dying, they either don’t care, or they want people to get sick and die. Healthcare providers and insurance companies are corporations too: you can get rich by treating more people.
- catlifeonmars 1y agoWrt to insurance companies: You can get rich by insuring more people. Treatment is not profitable.
- throwawaygmbno 1y agoAn insurance company CEO was famously shot in broad day light just before he went into a meeting to celebrate his accomplishment of denying people healthcare for his company's profits. Nobody felt bad except other CEOs and the people they directly pay because everyone has a story of the insurance company putting profit over people. They did not get rich by treating more people.
- yndoendo 1y agoUSA HealthCare insurance companies are the _Death Panels_, run by CEO, accounts, and investors, that work to maximize profit over keeping people health. They pay _specialist_ to contradict the actual practicing doctors on why some procedure or medicine is needed. A firm's sole responsibility is to increase profit and a maximize returns for shareholders. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
- AHatLikeThat 1y agoI'd argue the insurance companies prefer to collect premiums and not treat people.
- zdragnar 1y agoThen you'd be wrong. Insurance companies are limited to the amount they can collect without paying back out. It's a fixed percentage. That means the more expensive treatment gets, the higher they can raise rates, and the more revenue they get from that fixed percentage.
- vel0city 1y ago> Then you'd be wrong. Insurance companies are limited to the amount they can collect without paying back out. So they go buy the providers and clinics and pharmacies so they can raise the prices and juice that percentage.
- chung8123 1y agoThis debate style is pretty frustrating to me. Use a talking point for the other side and act like it is why the reason it the decision is made. It really does not lend itself to getting to the root of issues and finding what compromise is. In my opinion this added nothing to the conversation when in theory the op asked for a real answer.
- SSchick 1y agoOk, what is your counter argument?
- Daishiman 1y agoIm sorry if you’re naive about life but the Republican Party has shown nothing but contempt for life in general. Ideological coherency is not something they have cared about, hence debating them as if their arguments has any weight whatsoever is not useful. Whenever they propose something, just ask yourself which lobbyist stands something to gain. That will be a sufficient explanation.
- thegrim33 1y ago[flagged]
- thrance 1y agoWhat's up to debate here? It's crystal clear: they removed important health regulations so that a few companies could make slightly more money not having to clean up after themselves. What's not to hate there?
- suby 1y agoIt is frustrating. Rolling back forever chemical regulations is analogous to reintroducing leaded gasoline. Should we be expected to debate and weigh the pros and cons of leaded gasoline? Some things require nuance, but some things are clearly and unambiguously bad. PFAS have well known health risks, they're persistent, bio-accumulative, and linked to cancers and endocrine disruption. We should err on the side of caution. An angry reaction against this is justified. It's insanity.
- emddudley 1y agoIronically, PFAS levels have been found to be higher in wealthy people. People with money own more furniture and clothing with stain resistant treatments, for example.
- supportengineer 1y agoAlso brand new items versus used items. When you buy a used item, someone else has already absorbed the PFAS, and the depreciation for that matter.
- avazhi 1y ago[flagged]
- thrance 1y agoWhat's your reasonable explanation, then? A whole lot of words for saying nothing.
- avazhi 1y agoWhether I have a reasonable explanation for this change or not doesn't change the fact that that comment was a simplistic caricature. I never claimed to know the full answer. But I am nearly certain it doesn't begin with those evil corporations literally trying to make people sick. Merchants of Doubt, which is a great book related to this subject, is full of stories about how cigarette and PFAS corporations like Dupont pulled all sorts of shady shit to cover up the harms their products caused consumers. At no point has it ever been suggested, either in that book or anywhere else that I'm aware of, that corporations did it on purpose to make people ill so they could what, make money through the healthcare industry? Touch grass.
- cluckindan 1y agoDuPont pulled shady shit because executives were heavily incentivized to maximize profits in the short term.
- avazhi 1y agoOk? No shit? That's not the same thing as literally trying to make people sick, as the original commenter said and as I was replying to initially. Being negligent is not the same thing as being malicious; intent matters. Even if I try to cover up a harm, that doesn't mean the harm itself was my intention. If you guys can't understand the nuance there then I dunno what to tell you.
- cluckindan 1y ago
- e2le 1y agoI'm not convinced that this is the correct answer. These policies also affect wealthy individuals and wealthy individuals want to be healthy (I assume). An examination of the individuals in the EPA pushing this change might reveal something. Perhaps it's ideological? I don't know, I'm at a complete loss.
- shigawire 1y ago>These policies also affect wealthy individuals and wealthy individuals want to be healthy (I assume). They get to move to whatever enclave they want and buy expensive RO filters. Or, they don't believe in science broadly and believe they won't be impacted. If scientists are so smart, why aren't they rich like me and exploiting everyone and everything to the maximum potential profit??
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y agoI don't get the environmental poison stuff. These rich people and their families breathe the same air and drink the same water as everyone else. Why would they poison themselves and their families with environmental pollution?
- ndsipa_pomu 1y agoAlso, there's likely to be a few years between the policy being enacted and people having health issues, so the chances are that the people pushing for this won't be around to catch the blame.