Ah, so it's the system that's bad. Can't do anything about it, only shrug and follow orders. Somebody else would have switched the gas chamber on anyway.
> Ah, so by saying that denying insurance claims is not violence, because all insurance systems must deny some claims, I'm basically Hitler.
You're probably purposefully derailing the conversation, but for the sake of others let me bite: pointing out the resemblance of following orders of a killing system and excusing the individuals working in this system as "order followers", has nothing to do with calling anybody "literally Hitler".
> Do you think that Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung never denies claims? That it never denies care? Is it also violence when it does so?
IIUC, those are also private companies or at least to a degree. So probably similar to american healthcare, just more regulated.
Let's take a look at a 100% pure public healthcare instead, for example La Seguridad Social in Spain.
It denies some claims, care, and can cause some suffering and death. The institution is administered directly by some leadership individuals, and to some degree even by the elected government. Those individuals are not driven directly by the "financial obligation to make the maximum profit" out of healthcare. However they indirectly are, there are decisions to be made on spending, and budget is not magically infinite. These decisions are hard: you can't make everyone happy and healthy, whatever the result, some people suffer and die. See the trolley problem.
So if a public healthcare system works badly, and causes too much pain and suffering, then some of these individuals can also be held responsible. It's just that in practice, in general any public system works more towards the benefit of society than for some shareholders.
To be blunt: if the government individuals take decisions that degrade the public healthcare system, for their own benefit, whatever that is, then those individuals should maybe be shot in public too. This kind of violence, terrorism, works historically well, especially if it isn't targeted at random civilians. Democracy is not simply the rule of the majority.
It's not a matter of awareness, the public knows how perverse the incentives of private health insurance are, and how a public system can do much better. But the private system will never be replaced in the current american political landscape - without violence.
OK, I’m glad that we agree that any healthcare system will deny care to some people. That’s my point: this is necessarily the case, so it cannot be automatically “violence” when that happens. It is extremely naive to believe that whenever that happens, the cause must be necessarily nefarious.
> It's just that in practice, in general any public system works more towards the benefit of society than for some shareholders.
I think that this is simply empirically false. You cannot just assert something like this, you need to provide evidence for it.
> To be blunt: if the government individuals take decisions that degrade the public healthcare system, for their own benefit, whatever that is, then those individuals should maybe be shot in public too.
And here is the critical question: is there any evidence whatsoever that Bryan Thompson made any decision like that? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely zero. Many just decided he must be guilty of something, but nobody actually points to anything in particular.
> It's not a matter of awareness, the public knows how perverse the incentives of private health insurance are, and how a public system can do much better.
Again, you are asserting something that’s far from being universally agreed on. Public healthcare systems have their troubles too, and if you ask anyone with experience with both, you will not find people universally preferring their public experience. Ask Canadians or Brits how long it takes to get a visit at a specialist, for example.
> That’s my point: this is necessarily the case, so it cannot be automatically “violence” when that happens.
You're going in circles around an argument that you made up yourself. Do you want a pat on the back?
> I think that this is simply empirically false. You cannot just assert something like this, you need to provide evidence for it.
Now read that out back again loud.
> Again, you are asserting something that’s far from being universally agreed on.
I said: "It's not a matter of awareness, the public knows". That cannot be read as "universally agreed on" in good faith.
> Public healthcare systems have their troubles too, and if you ask anyone with experience with both, you will not find people universally preferring their public experience.
I never claimed public healthcare is perfect, on the contrary.
You will find rich people preferring private healthcare, which are a vocal minority.
> Ask Canadians or Brits how long it takes to get a visit at a specialist, for example.
I don't have to ask nobody because I live in a country with fully public healthcare. I am glad that poor people have the same access as rich people, and that triage by urgency, not money, works well (again not claiming that it's perfect, since you give everything your own meaning).
The USA on the other hand are infamous for the healthcare bankruptcy and literal horror stories. I think you don't realize how non-existant your safety net is. It only works well for you when you don't have a major health problem, and while you have a relatively very good paying job.
> Ah, so by saying that denying insurance claims is not violence, because all insurance systems must deny some claims
> Consider, for example, a public health insurance system like Germany. Do you think that Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung never denies claims? That it never denies care? Is it also violence when it does so?
Denying claims can be violence, it can also not be violence. There are other factors which you keep ignoring. Stop doing that.
I am ignoring that? This thread is literally full of people who take any insurance denial as automatically wrong. It is me who's asking people to think carefully about this!
If you say so. No one else is.
Did you miss the "gas chambers" part in the comment I replied to?
> This thread is literally full of people who take any insurance denial as automatically wrong.
Then go and reply to those people (if they are really in the room with us). In _this_ subthread nobody has said or implied that ANY insurance denials is automatically wrong.
"Literally hitler" wasn't directed at you personally, obviously, but you couldn't help but pick it up that way.
