“I say denying healthcare is a non starter if thats the only way it can function,”
It’s too late for that- health insurance companies have already been started, are going strong and are here to stay.
“then we need a different way. Period If that means Insurance will no longer be the lucrative field it is (one that MADE money during a pandemic!!!)”
Sounds good to me, go find another way- one that’ll work though. Just because something isn’t functioning 100% doesn’t mean that you get rid of it for something that has a 0% chance of succeeding.
“and instead we a need a non-for profit system or Government run Ok so be it.”
The government tried that already with the COOPs (part of the ACA). Each state was supposed to have one, they were supposed to be not for profit and the CEOs (or any employee) couldn’t make too much money. The government pumped billions of Dollars into them and they practically all failed within a few years (causing the providers to lose hundreds of millions of Dollars in unpaid claims and causing the policy holders to lose thousands of Dollars each in high deductibles that had to be restarted mid-year).
“But denying healthcare a patient and or doctor* deems neccesary is a non-starter for me”
Again, just because the system isn’t functioning 100% of the time for 100% of the people- doesn’t mean that you get rid of it for something that has no chance of working.
“disagree completely”
It would help if you would let me know what part of my comment you’re disagreeing on.
Do you disagree that CEOs make lots of money in their positions?
I’ve never researched this but I think the salaries of CEOs in publicly traded companies is available online.
Do you disagree that high paid CEOs are needed for health insurance companies to function?
Again, take a look at the failure of the COOPs where CEOs weren’t allowed to make too much money.
If you think it’s possible, go ahead and start a company that pays all claims- let’s see how long it lasts.
“Agree but while you view that as a feature. To me hat is a bug. In other words yes That is the way it has to be to function this way. My reply is: It cant be that way there fore it shouldnt function this way. we need a new system. Period.”
It’s an unfortunate feature- If companies just approve every claim they’re going to go out of business as premiums weren’t priced based on that. If they raise the premiums to be able to afford to pay all claims- the policy holders will just switch to a company that doesn’t pay all claims. You’re correct that it shouldn’t be that way but, again, just because there’s problems with a system doesn’t mean that you throw it out for a system that’s guaranteed to fail.
“Yes becasue of what yyou addmitted was “as unfortunate as it may be” If it is unfortunate, change it! It doesnt HAVE to be this way. We chose this.”
Again- just because a system is unfortunately not working 100% doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a way to fix it or that changing the system will be better. It doesn’t necessarily even mean that it’s the design of the system that’s flawed- the system could also be harmed by people who aren’t even part of it but are still bringing it down.
“YES! that is where we disagree. As I said from one of my first posts”
Finally! We agree on what we disagree on. As I mentioned in an earlier post- in order for a government run healthcare to work in this country the inhabitants need to start taking more responsibility for themselves- and we’re decades away from this and heading full speed in the wrong direction. Were the government to take over it would turn into an epic disaster probably the same size as the public-school calamity. Taxes will go up; the system will barely work for anyone and those who are serious about their healthcare are going to have to buy their own insurance (above what they’re already paying in their increased taxes).
I strongly feel that a system that’s working, but not for 100% of the people, shouldn’t be thrown out for a system that is guaranteed to fail catastrophically. Apparently, you disagree.