>> I'll take that action, because "healthcare" in America is controlled by money, and patients have none, and MacAbuseTheirEmployees has a lot. <<
Painfully true. Honestly, it's gotten to where I bounce most advice for corruption, and people become verbally violent when I refuse. But I'd rather go without health care than LET them abuse me.
>> What we have to do here is wag the dog, and force the Arches to treat both employees and customers right. <<
If only.
>> That and take the huge profit motive out of healthcare. But that requires the dreaded 's' word... <<
Binary thought error. Revert to base premise.
People need health care, and health care needs resources. But there are many ways to organize that. Various people have tried for-profit, government, and non-profit modes; paid for by individuals, businesses, insurance, the government, fundraising, and sundry other methods. For-profit does the best at controlling prices if that's their goal, but they do it by shortchanging customers: an inherent conflict of interest. Government has the best scope and influence, but easily strays into violation of human rights. Non-profit offers the best care and personal choice, but struggles to meet the demand levels. And every time you introduce any third party -- employer, insurance, government -- then it directly and indirectly undermines the quality of care and people's willingness to admit they need help at all.
The biggest problems with socialized medicine are that it merges government and health care such that people who distrust either one now avoid their union, and it tends to create a monopoly or near-monopoly such that providers and clients who find it doesn't meet their needs are usually screwed for lack of alternatives. What I'd really like to see is non-profit health care boosted to a larger scale and supported well enough that people could access it reliably. There are a few of these, and they often work great, but there just aren't enough.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Re: Well...
Date: 2017-06-14 07:38 pm (UTC)Painfully true. Honestly, it's gotten to where I bounce most advice for corruption, and people become verbally violent when I refuse. But I'd rather go without health care than LET them abuse me.
>> What we have to do here is wag the dog, and force the Arches to treat both employees and customers right. <<
If only.
>> That and take the huge profit motive out of healthcare. But that requires the dreaded 's' word... <<
Binary thought error. Revert to base premise.
People need health care, and health care needs resources. But there are many ways to organize that. Various people have tried for-profit, government, and non-profit modes; paid for by individuals, businesses, insurance, the government, fundraising, and sundry other methods. For-profit does the best at controlling prices if that's their goal, but they do it by shortchanging customers: an inherent conflict of interest. Government has the best scope and influence, but easily strays into violation of human rights. Non-profit offers the best care and personal choice, but struggles to meet the demand levels. And every time you introduce any third party -- employer, insurance, government -- then it directly and indirectly undermines the quality of care and people's willingness to admit they need help at all.
The biggest problems with socialized medicine are that it merges government and health care such that people who distrust either one now avoid their union, and it tends to create a monopoly or near-monopoly such that providers and clients who find it doesn't meet their needs are usually screwed for lack of alternatives. What I'd really like to see is non-profit health care boosted to a larger scale and supported well enough that people could access it reliably. There are a few of these, and they often work great, but there just aren't enough.