Fuck those for-profit insurance goons straight to fucking hell
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
32 points (100.0% liked)
Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related
2195 readers
217 users here now
Health: physical and mental, individual and public.
Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.
See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.
Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.
Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.
Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A lot of insurers (the “blues”) are non-profit. Doesn’t make our healthcare system more efficient
Thank you for the clarification. I will express my rage more adequately in the future.
Edit: It turns out that Blue Cross / Blue Shield is actually a not-for-profit instead of a non-profit.
Nonprofits are formed explicitly to benefit the public good; not-for-profits exist to fulfill an owner’s organizational objectives.
https://www.uschamber.com/co/start/strategy/nonprofit-vs-not-for-profit-vs-for-profit
Many blues are nonprofits. The blues are a network of insurers. It is not one company
Edit: randomly googled it and clicked on a few, here’s a couple examples of nonprofits:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Cross_and_Blue_Shield_of_Alabama
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Cross_Blue_Shield_of_Massachusetts
Cancer costs shouldn’t be a thing. Especially for people with insurance. What a con. Just give us socialized medicine already.
I have read that those who are uninsured raise the costs of services for others. I should probably look into this, but I have wondered if those on social services also increase the costs. I mean, clearly taxes support the systems. But I wondered if institutions make less on those with socialized plans over those with private insurance. So in the end individuals with private insurance get reamed by the government, the institution itself (because they can charge more), and the insurance companies which can raise costs as they see fit. Not sure though.
Cancer is scary though, and people shouldn't have to go into lifelong debt for just wanting to live. I have known several individuals over my lifetime who have chosen to bow out over the alternative. I have also known some people who have been in financial ruin since their treatment. They are still here, but are financially ruined so their life quality drops. Which leads to worse health in the long run. So it's a frustrating thing to think about as a whole.
I suppose the article touches on that last part. I think something else to state is it would be so wonderful if America created environments which were more conducive to better health. It's stressful to be an American, but I think it's because we're (for the most parts) pawns in this big game. Of course we do have some things far better than a majority of the individuals of the world. But I don't believe most Americans eat real food. Most "breaks" in people's days are just spent driving from point a to point b. So much of our lives are filled with chatter, and so many of our living spaces are filled with plastic tacky junk. If we could reduce a lot of this bull, I think we'd have less cancer overall. But then again, urbanization isn't the end all be all answer (smaller living spaces, shared living spaces, walking, less time spent commuting - etc.). Because they build cities with cars trouncing all throughout them increasing the pollution and temperature. So hell if I know what the real answer is, but I do know that there are for sure facets of the American lifestyle which have increased cancer rates.