A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
https://mas.to/@MikeBeas/113666556469008087
EDIT: I think you should get the service you pay for, just so that's clear.
The very concept of paying for health care through insurance is evil.
Why do we even allow a profit motive to deny health care? Should be straight up illegal.
You know... that kinda vow would be a great idea! Doctors take an oath like thing too, right?
We should stop calling it "insurance", it doesn't ensure anything. We should call it what it is - a protection racket. Either that, or we could refer to it as "medical loans" - of course, it's all paid in advance, in many installments. Oh wait. That's just defining a protection racket again, isn't it?
Loans pay out.
Oh no, each claim is a new loan application. You pay in your premium to have the right to apply.
Funny how life insurance always pays, no problem. Because if they get a bad rep, people will go elsewhere. We can't do that with employer-covered healthcare!
These tricks are many, this is just the tip.
insurance is a fucking scam that preys on the most vulnerable segment of the population in order to enrich themselves and their shareholders. and the vast majority of people think that's just the way things are in america, therefore it's the best possible way for things to be. what's not to understand?
The free market is excellent at producing, at a reasonable cost, myriad voluntary luxuries like large televisions and speedy cars. These prices are naturally constrained by the consumers' willingness to do-without. When the consumer cannot rationally choose to do-without, the elegant self-regulation intrinsic to the free market evaporates.
That why insurance should not be for profit.
... This dude needs to understand how other types of insurance work
Worse than that they staff doctors in name only. The type of quacks who couldn't make it in the real medical world. I really don't understand how they can't be sued for malpractice when they argue a diagnosis with your doctor. At that point they are acting as your doctor.
That's why you have to request the documentation and proof of specialty to confirm whether they're acting out of scope.
Not a fan of the smug liberal aura this post has.
I feel like every time someone uses the word "liberal" on lemmy, the meaning of the word shifts slightly to the right.
Liberals are right wing. They're comparatively further left than conservatives but both ideologies favour capitalism as the economic system which is inherently on the right -- in opposition to a more controlled market.
You can point out someone is wrong but still agree with the spirit of what they're saying...
It rarely goes over well, but I do it all the time. And I'm pretty fucking progressive.
Like, if people honestly thinks their insurance took a vow to protect them, it needs to be corrected. They're not saying it shouldn't be changed, but the first step to fixing it is understanding where we're at.
Like this guy has a point they dont have a duty of care, they didnt take an oath, they are a private for profit company with shareholders. They will absolutely take as much as they can, give you as little as they can and be as cunty about it as they can get away with.
Its fucking WRONG but its not surprising.
To be honest, I hadn't interpreted the quoted toot (man I do hate that they are called toots) as trying to educate people on how insurance works. In that light I do agree with what you are saying, people should be aware of how these systems actually work.
Apologies if this post is coming off as overly 'smug liberal'.
The worst part is, they actually hire doctors to analyze claims and they're the ones making the decisions whether the claims are accepted or not.
Edit: clarification
I'm sure the doctors stick with reviewing claims for which they have a lot of experience, spend the time to actually review the patient's specific scenario better than the doctor who saw the patient, and aren't financially incentivized to deny as many claims as possible.
Yeah that's what I was getting at. For some reason I'm being downvoted for saying how things actually work?
Shouldnt a doctor be "reviewing" the patient before making decisions?
Like wtf is is this middle manning. You go see doctor, then another insurance doctor is checking his homework but only based on paper work and with a financial incentive to deny as many claims as possible.
Also, I bet they explicitly state they are not rendering care when they review a claim, CYA legal shit. So are they even acting in their capacity as medical professional or just paper pusher with an MD. I don't think it even requires a licese.
Exactly.