a publicly traded insurance company is required by the shareholders that fund it to make larger profits, every year, year after year, forever.
They attempt to achieve this impossible goal of infinite growth by denying more and more claims, while charging more.
A government program like universal healthcare does not need to deny claims. Universal healthcare serves the voters that voted for it. Not shareholders that push companies to destroy themselves for infinite growth.
eclipse@lemmy.world 1 year ago
UsernameHere@lemmings.world 1 year ago
And universal health care isn’t insurance so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
eclipse@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I don’t see any fundamental difference in this context. A group of individuals pay into a communal fund and access it when in need.
Some take more than others, but everyone has a safety net to access.
You could argue about premiums and co-pays but the model is the same. The only difference is whether it is taken out of taxes or paid directly.
I apologise if we are approaching this from different viewpoints and I am not understanding properly.
UsernameHere@lemmings.world 1 year ago
The difference is…
a publicly traded insurance company is required by the shareholders that fund it to make larger profits, every year, year after year, forever.
They attempt to achieve this impossible goal of infinite growth by denying more and more claims, while charging more.
A government program like universal healthcare does not need to deny claims. Universal healthcare serves the voters that voted for it. Not shareholders that push companies to destroy themselves for infinite growth.