• conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    158
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is always what I think of when I hear arguments that our health care is “free market”. If it were, you could fire AETNA and go back to Kaiser. But that’s not the case, so insurers aren’t really beholden to satisfying their users, because their users aren’t their customers.

    • gohixo9650@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      it is free market. It actually is the definition of free market, accompanied with lobbying which is direct consequence of lack of regulations.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes exactly, anyone is free to set up a competing business, and incumbant players are free to make that as hard as possible while also being free to provide poor service because there is no viable competition.

        • gohixo9650@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          and to top that up, OP could had just bought an additional care package by paying by his own pocket in the health clinic that he initially was. Completely free to do it if he wanted to pay 3 times the price. People don’t understand that in the so called free market there are actually unwritten rules set by the ones in power. They think that they would somehow be benefited from the lack of regulations while the regulations should be there in order to protect them from the greed of the mega-corps.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly. Regulations are meant to level the playing field between the two parties, when one party has a big advantage due to size.