Track back through the conversation we've had and let's look at my claims vs yours because you keep moving goal posts and twisting words.
Your claim:
she states insurance fights to negotiate down
My claim:
I call you a liar and transcribe where she agrees that the opposite is true.
"Sam Seder: Insurers are limited in terms of profits, I think it's 20% essentially, or I should say that their premiums..80% of their premiums need to go towards providing care for people; So there's an incentive for insurance companies to do the absolute opposite of what we would anticipate for them to do which is to negotiate prices down but they actually benefit from prices going up.
Elisabeth Rosenthal: Right! You know, 20% of a big pie is better than 20% of a small pie and again that's kind of the road to hell paved in good intentions..."
My follow-up claim:
She does not absolve insurance companies. That is absolutely not true.
Your response does not address this but instead you ask:
"Where does she say Insurance is the issue?"
I clarify my point again:
"She does not absolve insurance companies"
Here's me going into more detail...
"None of this is to say that insurance is THE singular issue, another of your strawman attempts. But it does say that Insurance Companies are part of the problem due to their focus on profits. Hospital charges, pharmaceuticals AND insurance companies are ALL problematic with issues to be addressed. Insurance company profit motives have exacerbated runaway costs."
You go back to a claim that I did not make:
Where does she state insurances are the problem?
This is what I meant when I said:
"Your whole game is to twist what people say to suit your needs."
You can't beat the actual claims I'm making. So you go to an easier argument to refute, which is that I think she's claiming insurance companies are the problem as opposed to bad actors that exacerbate the situation. I've explained, using her own transcribed words where it was implied that the insurance companies do not have an incentive to try to keep prices down and reasonable (I keep reposting it to try and keep us on topic). This is getting sad breh, you're triggered harder than when AOC's name comes up in any way shape or form and you're falling back to the typical mechanisms you use to shield yourself from honest discussions or debates. It's sad and I'll keep letting people know how you move because it's frustrating to watch someone misinform people, but hilarious to watch the emotional breakdown that follows when anyone refutes your BS.
She never stated insurance are driving prices up, her stating the UCR which was intended to drive prices down.
She said right , because it's true if prices go up insurance carrier do profit more but she never stated they don't try to keep prices in check because that's exactly what UCR is you fukkin idiot. While she did say Insurance doesn't fight for you (which is bullshyt) she did correctly state in extreme cases that do. However look at your next bill and they show you what their negotiated rates with providers are .
Furthermore she stated exactly what I stated originally and know all of a sudden you "clarified" your point to now insurance isn't the singular issue lmfao.
Tell me how is the pass through the problem? What role is insurance playing that Jack's the prices up others than passing through the costs?
Answer that without googling a bunch of nonsense.
Nothing you said makes sense, you don't know what UCR is or what it's intended to do. You actually believe insurance doesn't negotiate on your behalf especially in the extreme cases and that they aren't driving prices down. ...the medical claims they pay aren't there revenues. They can make the same amount on lower premiums if the health industy lowered costs ...
This lady again never stated insurance was the problem , yet here your are trying to put words in her mouth . Not to mention she is no expert and it's an op-ed...nevsr heard of her and she has no credentials that make anything she says redeemable
