pull down to refresh

Progressivism and the Murder of a Health Insurance CEOmises.org/mises-wire/progressivism-and-murder-health-insurance-ceo
235 sats \ 14 comments \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 11 Dec Politics_And_Law
The narrative that these online progressives clearly subscribe to and perpetuate is one where, in the United States, healthcare is a totally unfettered, unregulated industry; where—because of a total lack of government involvement—wealthy CEOs charge whatever prices they want and then refuse to provide customers what they already paid for without facing any bad consequences.
The characterization of healthcare and health insurance companies charging absurdly high prices while treating their customers terribly without the risk of losing them is spot on.
But the idea that what caused this was a lack of government involvement in the healthcare system is completely delusional. And this delusion conveniently removes all the responsibility progressives bear for the nightmare that is the US healthcare system.
Yes, where does the responsibility lie for the mess the healthcare system is in at this moment? Yesteryear, there were even housecalls by doctors, not just 10 minute, fill in the blanks, questions and no personality involved. The usual was catastrophic insurance coverage and cash on the barrel head for other services. Who screwed that up, do you think?
write
preview
related posts
30 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined 11 Dec
Of course, I agree with you and I've seen nothing to indicate the killer had some deep nuanced understanding of the situation.
However, this incident raises a non-straightforward question of how justice can possibly be administered to those who are cozy with the regime.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this guy was aware of people being systematically denied coverage, and consequently treatment, because of a known flaw in how claims are evaluated. (I have seen that alleged, but am agnostic about it)
If that led to deaths, then he would be culpable for an enormous amount of damages with no prospect of being held accountable through official mechanisms.
reply
109 sats \ 4 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 11 Dec
He got held accountable to the highest degree, didn’t he? I don’t know if it was decided on his level or some other level within the company to deny 33% of the claims, but he, as CEO, was still responsible. People have a hard time holding a fictional person (corporation) liable for blood damages. Money doesn’t always seem to cover those kinds of damages.
reply
40 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 11 Dec
When we think about justice in a Rothbardian framework, responsibility always has to rest with an individual. It may be that a corporation pays out the damages for contractual reasons, but only an actor can be morally culpable.
reply
191 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 11 Dec
Yes, he was morally culpable, wasn’t he? Other people considered this and acted upon it, individually. This is what happens when the state cronies are protected too much. It even happens to the leaders of states, such as Nicolae Ceaușescu and his wife.
reply
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 11 Dec
Whether or not he was culpable, I don't like society moving in this direction. It might be rough seas ahead.
reply
372 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 11 Dec
Hasn’t society already drifted into that pattern. Riots where the looting is rife and is excused ‘cuz reasons? What will happen when the “progressives” decide to riot and burn cities about the time Trump is inaugurated, ‘cus reasons? I don’t think that this will go down well with civilized people. I did not like it when my favorite bookshop got burned to an absolute crisp and no justice was done. Civilization seems to be evaporating rapidly, I think, by design.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @OgFOMK 11 Dec
This is a classic create a problem for an artificial solution already deployed. Hegel.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 11 Dec
Yes, THOSE people, our overlords, are at it again, aren’t THEY?
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Aardvark 11 Dec
Government regulations keep competition from entering the field. Government regulation makes it illegal to discontinue service with your insurance company. Insurance companies do whatever they want.
Shocked Pikachu face.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 11 Dec
No need for a shocked Pikachu face!! This is the usual procedure in a Marxist orientated state where companies and the state are closely intertwined.
reply
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @023ad18700 11 Dec
Ya it’s messed up they can just deny you coverage when your really sick and need it
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 11 Dec
The question may better be, “are they denying coverage that is contracted for?” If they are contracted for it and do not deliver the stated services, there is a big problem, perhaps fraud.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 12 Dec
In economic theory, the efficiency of markets usually relies on the ability to write complete contingent contracts.
Due to the complexity of health care, it's not actually possible to do that in real life. The contracts we write are incomplete, and unclear on certain issues. This gives rise to the issues of asymmetric information, as well as ex-post denial of coverage and unanticipated situations.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 12 Dec
The health insurance companies can only do this due to their closeness to the state. Asymmetric information and fraud are bases for voiding contracts. Perhaps the people that are pissed off will realize it was probably the underwriters and not the C-level people that are responsible for the final decisions on coverage. It won’t be pretty.
reply