Mr. Blunt and Cranky has a relative who is currently on life support, for the second time in less than two months. Why, you might ask? The answer is simple – in order to make enough profit, the health insurance company denied that person care: care that each and every medical professional said was critical to his survival.

Politicians like to raise the spectre of the “public-sector bureaucrat”, painting such individuals as evil grandma-killing beings who must not be allowed near our loved ones. This writer finds the concept to be rather odd: in his experience, such people usually aren’t that concerned with the bottom line, and tend to opt for spending more, not less (in fact, the same politicos will complain about at this tendency at the drop of a vote). Put another way, a government person is far more likely to hand out health care, because they aren’t answerable for a profit margin.

Most private citizens have actually had problems with private-sector peeps denying them care – certainly, Mr. B & C has had to argue with medical insurers a fair few times over the years. When a company is in business to make a profit, their interests are quite logically not as focused on patient care as they could be: there is an inherent conflict between providing care and making coin.

In the current case, that conflict led to the usual result – profit won out over medical need, and what looked like a promising outcome turned bad, just as everyone except the bean-counters said it would. This writer’s family might lose a loved one, and the insurance company won’t care one bit, because they are making money. (Actually, the insurers are losing their asses on this deal, because Intensive Care costs a LOT more than the treatment he should have gotten. But their strategy pays them big bucks overall. So, they say “f***  the odd patient who loses their life”.)

All things considered, Mr. B & C would be more than happy to take his chances with a government healthcare system: because the for-profit system has clearly failed his family.