Because when you're dying you have no bargaining position. You can't just wait it out. And you're just a single client, whether you personally die or not does not meaningfully change their bottom line.

So it is a highly asymmetric bargaining situation where all the incentives are poorly aligned. Of course it is exploitative.

▲

bko 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Okay, you have no bargaining decision when you have N providers, so we should get rid of all providers with a single provider because only then you'll be in better bargaining position.

And now your death will have a meaningful change to the career bureaucrat or politician that made the decision that led to your death.

Because power of an individual vote is much more powerful than the power to take your business elsewhere. That's if you can find out the responsible party that makes these decisions and they're not appointed but elected, otherwise you'd have to mount an influence campaign on the politicians with 90% re-election rate to change said bureaucratic leader.

Makes a lot of sense.

	▲	jgeada 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		All empirical evidence shows that single payer systems work better, producing far better outcomes at lower cost, than the US system. In fact, so much better that a single payer system is what Congress has chosen for itself! But seems some prefer to believe a theoretical argument with no evidence to back it up. “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”