[jbaiter]

> Any healthcare system must deny healthcare. No healthcare system existing anywhere on this planet provides infinite healthcare to everyone. Denying healthcare is not violence.

Nobody argues against that, but United Healthcare had a denial rate of more than 30%, which is the highest among the major health insurance companies in the US. Coupled with the fact that they make profits off of those denials, it's hard not to call this non physical violence with the aim to generate more capital for share holders and executives.

> In any economic system, units of economic organizations must sometimes dissolve, and people must be laid off. This is unavoidable. Laying people off is not violence.

Again, absolutely agree. But it can be argued that doing so without any regard for individuals, their history with the economic unit and personal circumstances, is non-physical violence. Look at e.g. European employment laws for how this can be mitigated (not without some drawbacks ofc).

> In any society, debts are expected to be paid off. If people could just stop paying their debts, nobody would make any loans anymore. Forcing people into bankruptcy is not violence.

In every just society, the debtor has a responsibility as well to not lend money to people who cannot afford it. Giving somebody a loan they cannot afford and then bankrupting them is definitely non-physical violence.

> I suggest thinking about why these things happen, what would be alternative, and so we put up with these.

You put up with these because the US is a violent society with little regards for individual lives. Great for entrepreneurs and people with access to capital, not so great for much of the rest.

The alternatives have of course their own share of problems, but don't act as if the system is the only reasonable one.

[xyzzyz]

> Nobody argues against that, but United Healthcare had a denial rate of more than 30%, which is the highest among the major health insurance companies in the US.

As it happens, there will always exist a health insurance company with highest denial rate among all companies. That's a simple mathematical fact: a finite set of numbers has a maximum number. You need to do more legwork to show any actual wrongdoing on anyone's part here.

> In every just society, the debtor has a responsibility as well to not lend money to people who cannot afford it. Giving somebody a loan they cannot afford and then bankrupting them is definitely non-physical violence.

This is absurd. When your debtors go bankrupt, you lose money. Nobody wants to lend money to people who cannot afford it.

[Freedom2]

> As it happens, there will always exist a health insurance company with highest denial rate among all companies. That's a simple mathematical fact: a finite set of numbers has a maximum number. You need to do more legwork to show any actual wrongdoing on anyone's part here.

This isn't correct. Mathematically (as you say), you can have all health companies have a denial rate of 0%.

Realistically it's impossible, but you did say mathematically.

[brokenmachine]

This is pedantry at it's finest, but at the risk of adding more... Wouldn't the mathematical maximum be 0 in that case?

[Freedom2]

Correct! I was more-so addressing the following statement, not necessarily the mathematical maximum one:

> As it happens, there will always exist a health insurance company with highest denial rate among all companies

If OP was going to start leaning onto "mathematical fact[s]" to support their argument, they should probably be accurate as well. Specifically there will be "multiple" health insurance companies with the highest denial rate (0), not "a" company.

[mandmandam]

> This is absurd. When your debtors go bankrupt, you lose money. Nobody wants to lend money to people who cannot afford it.

Weren't you just calling someone's comment "exceedingly naive"?

The poor and financially vulnerable (ie, most Americans) are at a systemic disadvantage when dealing with debt, bankruptcy laws, and the justice system. They are preyed upon by all sorts of people offering debt, at a higher rate than ever before, anywhere.

Not to mention government bailouts, which really changed the game with regard to balancing risk.

[marcus0x62]

> This is absurd. When your debtors go bankrupt, you lose money. Nobody wants to lend money to people who cannot afford it.

That depends, amongst other things, on how much interest you charge in the interim. Payday lenders makes lots of money off of people who a) cannot afford their loans by any reasonable metric and b) default on those loans.

[xyzzyz]

No. Whether you charge large or small interest, you never want your debtor to go bankrupt, because it means cessation of the interest payments.

[marcus0x62]

If you think payday lenders care one iota about debtors going bankrupt after collecting multiples of the original loan amount in interest, I cannot help you.

[xyzzyz]

Of course they care, they’d rather the debtor never go bankrupt, so that they can keep collecting. Do you understand how loans work?

[marcus0x62]

I get that you have an ideological position to defend and, based on your other comments in this thread have either an inability or an unwillingness to cede any ground. So while, yes, I do understand how loans work, I do not have any further interest in talking to you about payday lenders. Have a nice day.