"They must make money for their shareholders", is Moore missing the point on healthcare?

Question

Did anyone see Mr. Moore on MSNBC today? I am not going to bash him totally, I agree healthcare needs an overhaul BUT...

He said that HMO's are in business to save their shareholders money by spending as little as possible. I understand he's a liberal so he's used to spending other people's money, but isn't saving money a good thing? This statement is the exact reason I don't want the government managing my healthcare! Spending, spending, spending is not the answer. Haven't we proven that with every other program the government manages? From wellfare to public schools. I don't want people who need care to go without either, but you need checks and balances. Most insurance companies do a fine job and provide great service, especially compared to any government program.

I would like Moore to do a documentary in those countries with gov. health care, the public is not satisfied in those instances either.

Answer 1

I don't think he's missing the point. There are certain things that just shouldn't be done on a for-profit basis. Any private company is responsible to its shareholders and its shareholders alone, whereas the government, at least in theory, is responsible to its citizens.

I live in Canada, where we have universal health care with the government being the (mainly) single payer. We spend less money on adminstration than in the U.S. and, if U.N. figures are to be believed, provide a better health care system, while spending less of our Gross Domestic Product on health care. If we can do more with less than a free-enterprise system, the only explanation is that the free-enterprise system is siphoning off money that should be used for care and keeping it as profits.

I don't have any major complaints about the health care system in my province (health care is a provincial responsiblity, atlhough provinces have to meed Federal standards) other than that it has deteriorated due to Neoconservative budget cuts when the price of oil was lower and provincial revenue was lower. We now have to undo the damage done by people who wanted to make the system more American. Even with all that, when I needed emergency eye surgery, I got it the next day.

Americans have an instinctive dislike of government. There are, however, not only things that only the government should be doing, but that it can do better than the private sector.

Answer 2

The point is that the current system is structured to deny claims in order to increase dividends to shareholders, whereas a national system understands that the CITIZENS are the shareholders, and that we have a common interest in a healthy, productive workforce. Instead of "workforce" you could insert the term "consumer base", it's really all the same.

The other problem is the fine print that denies all of the coverage the large print says the policyholder is entitled to receive. Like the HMO that denied payment for an ambulance ride because it wasn't approved in advance, what the heck kind of coverage is that??

There's no way it makes sense that we are the only industrialized nation that doesn't have universal healthvare, AND that we pay vastly more for what we actually receive than anyone else.

Do you think it's right that $600 billion per year goes to pay administrators, executives, and the lawyers who decide what coverage to deny and to whom it should be denied in the interest of paying shareholders?

Nationalized plans pay between 3% and 6% in administrative costs, not the 30% Americans now fork over.

Answer 3

You miss the point of his statement.

Yes, corporations exist to make money. And their directors have a fiduciary duty to expand profits and benefit the shareholders.

The point of Moore's comment is that health care SHOULD not be a business -- not that it WAS not a business.

His argument is that the HMO's are in a position where they must choose between caring for their customers (patients) and earning a profit -- and the corporate rules are very clear that the directors should choose profit over medical care.

That's the problem that he's trying to point out.

As far as whether the govt can do a better job, I agree with you that it's very unlikely. But I'll wait to see the actual bill proposal before ruling it out entirely.

Answer 4

perhaps i will clarify the placement in a manner that doesn't look so "gloom and doom". for years, we've not overhauled the scientific equipment, as a results of fact it became "too high priced" so 10 years in the past, we've been paying a million out of each and every 10 money for scientific fee. even with the undeniable fact that, it has persisted to get extra high priced, and now we are paying a million out of each and every 5 money for scientific fee. this is like no longer paying on a private loan, and the pastime is strengthen, and to maintain delaying it, after a jointly because it merely overwhelms you. in some unspecified time interior the destiny, if we don't do something merely the very wealthy would be waiting to handle to pay for wellbeing care, and jointly as the very wealthy could say "so what, they ought to get a much better pastime" it is going to nonetheless result the very wealthy. we are dropping artwork days as a results of fact of ill workers, with persistent ailments that could no longer be dealt with, as a results of fact the coverage corporation will merely pay a undeniable quantity. the authentic subject is this, if somebody had the balls some time past to be unpopular and do what had to be executed, we does not be throughout the time of this mess. and it fairly is relatively not directed at George W. yet all the some time past to Reagan!

Answer 5

If you go to his movie, you will see that he does go to countries with gov health care.

If an HMO were "not for profit" you would not see insurance companies failing the people's health care problems as you do since they are "for profit."

There shouldn't be any profit in illness, that is just pathetic.

Answer 6

how is saving money good when it comes at the cost of people's well being?