Thank you for asking. I would be happy to help you understand here.
The answer to your question is: The important piece of information is that people should not be denied lifesaving care just to increase or maintain margin. Thus, someone who does the former is bad, and someone who criticizes a bad person is totally okay in doing so.
Compare to marking up a bag of juice at 100%, which is also totally okay because you aren't effectively killing people by doing so. Thus, no contradiction exists.
To dig even deeper: because a life is worth more than the markup on a bag of juice. A thousand bags of juice marked up 100% would be morally better than denying lifesaving care just to increase margins 1%.
> people like to complain
This type of commentary is better suited for Reddit.
>The important piece of information is that people should not be denied lifesaving care just to increase or maintain margin.
So you want a business to go out of business? This discussion is not about whether or not the government should pay for everyone's healthcare, no matter the cost. The American public has already decided that should not be the case, and there should exist a business that adjudicates whether or not an appropriate amount of healthcare and cost is being distributed.
>This type of commentary is better suited for Reddit.
Not really. The root of the issue is that the American public wants something it cannot afford (or at least wants it for themselves but not for others). This manifests as nonsensical complaints about the entity that earns the lowest profit margins. The MCO raises the premium/deductible, complaints. The MCO denies coverage, complaints. And this will actually go all the way back to an untenable population histogram where fewer and fewer young people will be bled to support more and more old people.
I didn't say that. They can raise premiums, or they can decide that being in a position where you effectively kill people for profit isn't a great place for a company to operate, and abdicate to the government. Either way, profiting off death you contribute to, is generally a Bad Thing. Based off the UHC CEO's murder and the reactions to it, it seems I am not the only one who thinks this.
> This discussion is not about whether or not the government should pay for everyone's healthcare
Actually, that's precisely one of the options I'm discussing! :)
Point being, pointing out "this is hard for a corporation to do and still make money" doesn't excuse the badness of profiting off your contributions to killing people. Like maybe don't do it as a corporation if it's so hard?
> The American public has already decided that should not be the case, and there should exist a business that adjudicates whether or not an appropriate amount of healthcare and cost is being distributed.
Have they? I must have missed that individual question was explicitly on the ballot as you describe.
Thank you for asking. I would be happy to help you understand here.
The answer to your question is: The important piece of information is that people should not be denied lifesaving care just to increase or maintain margin. Thus, someone who does the former is bad, and someone who criticizes a bad person is totally okay in doing so.
Compare to marking up a bag of juice at 100%, which is also totally okay because you aren't effectively killing people by doing so. Thus, no contradiction exists.
To dig even deeper: because a life is worth more than the markup on a bag of juice. A thousand bags of juice marked up 100% would be morally better than denying lifesaving care just to increase margins 1%.
> people like to complain
This type of commentary is better suited for Reddit.