[syki]

Of course healthcare isn’t and can’t be free. Unless by free you mean free at the point of usage. I support government provided healthcare and government runs off of tax revenue. Denying a person cancer treatment for no other reason than because they can’t pay $x at the point of usage is an immoral system. An analogous situation occurs with federal courts. Those who can’t afford filing fees have those fees waived and those that can pay them do so. This is done because the court system recognizes that access to the court system based on the ability to pay at the point of usage is a bad system.

[BobbyJo]

That's a bad comparison. The filing fee is small compared medical treatment, and it's in support of the government itself. The cost of doing that for people is tiny and doesn't really take away from anyone else.

Medicine is a scarce resource at this point, and, generally speaking, giving care to X often means Y won't get it. The fundamental problem with medical care is supply, lowering barriers for demand isn't a solution to that.

[syki]

The analogy is apt since it was an example of the idea that some people, thankfully, are aware that some services should not have their availability based on ability to pay at the point of usage. In the U.S. system denials of care by insurance companies are not done so another person can get said care. They are done to increase profit margins and profiting from denying someone care is immoral.

[BobbyJo]

> The analogy is apt since it was an example of the idea that some people, thankfully, are aware that some services should not have their availability based on ability to pay at the point of usage

That last bit is exactly what we're in disagreement about, and I haven't seen a good case for it yet.

> In the U.S. system denials of care by insurance companies are not done so another person can get said care

True.

> They are done to increase profit margins

Indirectly, sure. Its a business where money out must be less than money in.

> and profiting from denying someone care is immoral.

Again, this is the disagreement, and I'm not really seeing a good argument for that being the case. Some people should be denied care. I don't see why performing a necessary function shouldn't be profitable, especially when it's beneficial to everyone in times of scarcity, like now.

[syki]

Police, most roads, and certain aspects of the legal system are free at the point of usage. It’s bad to have for profit police, court system, and Air Force. Some things ought not be profit driven. It’s quite disconcerting that someone sees no problem with a person profiting from denying healthcare. I should not be able to enrich myself by denying you health care. Tough decisions need to be made and the motive for the decision should not be profit.

I am not more important than you or anyone else. I don’t deserve health care before you just because I have more money. That’s a perverse idea. Unfortunately too many Americans embody the Bible’s warning regarding the love of money.

[BobbyJo]

Ahhh, ok. I see where we are disagreeing. You're assuming some equivalencies in what I'm saying that I do not.

> Police, most roads, and certain aspects of the legal system are free at the point of usage.

Sure, and those generally work well because the overhead is low. The per person cost of all of those services combined is extremely low compared to medical expenses. If giving everyone healthcare cost the same as giving every 911 service, this conversation wouldn't be happening.

> It’s bad to have for profit police, court system, and Air Force.

I think government and the monopoly on violence are generally good so long as the government is democratic, so sure.

> Some things ought not be profit driven

Totally agree. Executions and jails for instance. Anything were the service involves inflicting violence or removing rights is probably better left to a democratically elected organization.

> It’s quite disconcerting that someone sees no problem with a person profiting from denying healthcare. I should not be able to enrich myself by denying you health care. Tough decisions need to be made and the motive for the decision should not be profit.

You're confusing the role with the action. I think 'being the organization that prioritizes care' can be profitable and ethical. That's different from saying 'an organization should get paid for saying no to someone'. Those are two different things and you're assuming that you can't have the first without the second. The insurance company doesn't make money off 'saying no', it makes money off codifying rules that distribute healthcare and enforcing them on a set of people buying into those rules. When more people are denied they make more money, but they aren't 'denying to make money'. It's a different incentive structure from you're describing. Also, nobody in that scenario is 'denying care' they are denying paying for the care. You're still free to go receive the care and pay for it yourself. You can also find a charity and convince them to pay, or crowd fund. That's actually a benefit of the market driven system: there is no such thing as a 'hard' no.

> I am not more important than you or anyone else. I don’t deserve health care before you just because I have more money. That’s a perverse idea.

Totally agree. Having the ability to purchase something is not the same as 'deserving' that something. Two entirely different concepts that live in different systems. One is grounded in the philosophical idea of fairness, and the other in the physical process of voluntary exchange.

> Unfortunately too many Americans embody the Bible’s warning regarding the love of money.

Totally agree here too, as an agnostic, although that's kind of a tangent.