Excellent question. You’re in Europe. You pay outrageous taxes, but your healthcare is included.
In America, we pay less outrageous taxes, but we are on our own with insurance. Most people get it though their employment at a slight discount. Personally, I pay 1k PER MONTH to cover my family.
But..
#1 it doesn’t really cover much; certain surgeries or medications are denied (and the denial rate is increasing).
#2 I also have to pay a deductible which is 1k - 5k depending on who you go see, so in other words, I have to pay thousands more before insurance even kicks in.
#3 then it’s only 80/20 until you meet your out of pocket max (could be a few hundred or a few more thousand.)
#4 THEN insurance will pay 100% of what they approve. But only till the end of the year, then the cycle resets.
TLDR: We pay A LOT. Get a little. ^ claim denials = profit. Costs ^
Thanks for the answer. It's rare to hear such views in a right-wing space. For me, it's been impossible to figure out what's true because every source is biased, either for or against the American health care system. And I don't want to say without knowing (like most people in Europe) "we are better because we is us".
But what you describe sounds like a systemic problem, not something for which an individual is culpable. He may have been a cog in a bad system, but does that lessen guilt for someone who kills the guy - someone who wasn't even personally a victim of that system? I'd be all sympathy if it were someone whose wife died because of a denial for cancer treatment (if that is even possible) - even if the action itself is still wrong.
Is it also not dangerous to say that murder may be more OK if the guy you kill is a 'bad guy' - even if doing completely legal things?
Good points all around. To to answer your questions, yes it’s wrong and creates a dangerous precedent (as we saw last week).
The CEO symbolized all that was wrong with the health care system in the eyes of many. And they had the highest % of total denials at 33. People no doubt die from these denials, or after a lengthy appeals process. So people (especially on the left) felt justified in his killing.
But, as you know, it didn’t solve anything. Healthcare is still f*cked and now insurance is digging in its heels. And we discovered later that he wasn’t all that bad. He was trying to fight investors (who later sued United) demanding more denials and less customer service support
Sorry. I don’t want to throw the book at this guy. Just saying.
Not saying you're right or wrong, but can you explain why?
Excellent question. You’re in Europe. You pay outrageous taxes, but your healthcare is included.
In America, we pay less outrageous taxes, but we are on our own with insurance. Most people get it though their employment at a slight discount. Personally, I pay 1k PER MONTH to cover my family.
But..
#1 it doesn’t really cover much; certain surgeries or medications are denied (and the denial rate is increasing).
#2 I also have to pay a deductible which is 1k - 5k depending on who you go see, so in other words, I have to pay thousands more before insurance even kicks in.
#3 then it’s only 80/20 until you meet your out of pocket max (could be a few hundred or a few more thousand.)
#4 THEN insurance will pay 100% of what they approve. But only till the end of the year, then the cycle resets.
TLDR: We pay A LOT. Get a little. ^ claim denials = profit. Costs ^
Thanks for the answer. It's rare to hear such views in a right-wing space. For me, it's been impossible to figure out what's true because every source is biased, either for or against the American health care system. And I don't want to say without knowing (like most people in Europe) "we are better because we is us".
But what you describe sounds like a systemic problem, not something for which an individual is culpable. He may have been a cog in a bad system, but does that lessen guilt for someone who kills the guy - someone who wasn't even personally a victim of that system? I'd be all sympathy if it were someone whose wife died because of a denial for cancer treatment (if that is even possible) - even if the action itself is still wrong.
Is it also not dangerous to say that murder may be more OK if the guy you kill is a 'bad guy' - even if doing completely legal things?
Good points all around. To to answer your questions, yes it’s wrong and creates a dangerous precedent (as we saw last week).
The CEO symbolized all that was wrong with the health care system in the eyes of many. And they had the highest % of total denials at 33. People no doubt die from these denials, or after a lengthy appeals process. So people (especially on the left) felt justified in his killing.
But, as you know, it didn’t solve anything. Healthcare is still f*cked and now insurance is digging in its heels. And we discovered later that he wasn’t all that bad. He was trying to fight investors (who later sued United) demanding more denials and less customer service support