My sister had her gallbladder removed a decade or two ago. It was basically exploding or something in the er. Really disgusting amounts of pain.
Anyway, she was immediately denied as they couldn't determine whether her gallbladder removal was elective or not. The doctor said something like "well fuck that, that's why we have a team of lawyers."
I think that's a pretty succinct summary. Without one or more lawyers at your disposal we might as well all get fucked.
Well the title "Medicare For All Would Abolish Private Insurance" is true though.
The big question is why should we care? Why should this be our problem? Why should our hard earned money be used for profit instead working only as an insurance pool?
Things change, and one has to adapt (just look at the LLM crazy), same with insurance companies. They can similarly adapt and do something different, for example start offering non essential insurances that would be on top of the M4A. Not replacements though. Medicare "Advantage" should be abolished as well.
I'm starting to think they are putting in subliminal messages, making their base ask ask "hang on, why is this bad?"
Much like Fox has the progressive talking points front and center.
My wife needs a surgery thats likely to cost 18 to 20 grand without insurance, and I have to do some really careful math to figure out if putting her on my insurance would actually save us anything.
Most likely flying to Mexico for a week to get it done would be cheaper too.
I'm here waiting on insurance to approve a medication I need, like, eight months ago and which costs over a hundred thousand dollars per year (before insurance gets the negotiated price).
My grandfather needed some medication. Only 3 months, but over $400 a month. I found a Canadian pharmacy, bought 3 months of it, had the doctor fax the script there, and it was less than $300 for the 3 months. It was quite literally a lifesaver for him and their finances.
The one I used was called The Great North Pharmacy. A lot of them wouldn't take card payments for some reason and would only accept a mailed check. It didn't sit right with me. They called me to do the standard "pharmacist overview" of the medication, and it arrived fairly quickly. I'm not trying to shill for them, but they were really good for what we needed. Good luck.
My brother spent eight fucking weeks with a constant migraine unable to walk or even stand up without falling over, before his insurance finally approved the MRI that discovered the golf-ball-sized tumor in his brain. Muigi Langione is all I can say.
The public service should provide a universal floor for citizens. There are quasi-medical services like massage that both have medical benefits and are also used more as a spa treatment, and people with pets are finding pet medical insurance more attractive these days. I think areas like that can make more sense to keep private.
As well as this being stupid for the reasons given, its also just flat out wrong. There is no reason why you couldn't have additional healthcare insurance to act as a top-up/faster non-essential care/nicer facilities when you are in hospital. That's how it works in the UK, even with completely nationalized, free at the point of use healthcare there is still room for private insurance, it just has to earn its place rather than being a complete leach.
Exactly this. Universal healthcare still leaves room for private facilities and insurance, it just forces a minimum standard on the market that they clearly don't want in the US
I will say though that the presence of private healthcare in the UK does make me very uncomfortable, especially with how much the NHS is struggling for money
It kinda feels like our postal service in the U.S.
They defund it, then complain about it, then start ranting that it "Doesn't even make a profit" even though the whole point is that it's supposed to be an affordable and accessible mail service.
They're even doing the same thing with schools. The entire conservo-righty playbook anymore is to get rid of our public services so they and their rich buddies have more to gain at our expense.
It's so weird how the "Communism is when the government gives people stuff" crowd just so happens to be concentrated in places where, were the surrounding states and federal government to stop subsidizing public services or industries or funding, they'd be almost completely destitute over night.
Like you said, it just wouldn't be worth it to private interests to reach an already-poorer population in the middle of nowhere with services like hospitals, shipping, or telecom.
I really wish they could understand this. Not in a "See what we do for you?" kind of way, but more like "See? Things are actually better when we're working together with government to take care of each other." Kind of way...
If they succeed and all those benefits get pulled in favor of private parasites, they'll be even poorer, even angrier, and still blame the Democrats.
This is how conservatives operate. The wealthy want more wealth and don't care who gets hurt. Their bootlickers are drunk on authoritarianism, and get off on bowing to their superiors and kicking the people under them. There's something wrong with the bootlickers brains. You'd probably be an asshole, too, if you came every time you bowed down to a rich man or hurt someone poorer than you.
We're pulling for you guys! Anyone will a brain here in the U.S looks up to and admires how fiercely the French people defend their rights. You don't roll over and let the suits do as they please.
Please keep being that shining example to us all! The world is very dark for the working person right now. We need you!
Thank you, but the pessimist I am cannot reassure you on this point.
Currently France and most of its population are very far from that fierce image, and that's not new.
Our so-called "leaders" follow objectives and methods similar to their U.S. counterparts, with an apparent lag / delay. Our ten years president is a neo liberal with also some traditionalist catholic views on social norms. The asymetry in apparent power is such that those politicians don't have too much to fear from the general population. (For now at least.) They just have to get enough people to vote for them once in a while, and manipulative communcation campaign do the job real fine.
Demonstrations and strikes don't often work: they are generally ignored, circumvented, or smeared, criminalized, and sometimes violently repressed. (With accusations of terrorism). We even have a very violent "police" unit seemingly fully dedicated to beat up demonstrators. (The "BRAV-M".) More powers, more tools, more weaponery and legal protections are given to the police (or similar) forces.
The fatigue and discouragement from our worsening living conditions depowered the fights for general interest causes. (against domination and exploitation systems, for example)
But !.. the same worsening living conditions are becoming bad enough that people become more afraid of being passive than of the consequences of opposing the "elites" and their goons. I sure hope the balance will tip in favor of those who fight for a better life before the faschist-style authoritarism is fully installed.
2027's elections will be quite a battleground, but honestly we're in need of more than some "providential" elected president with a good program. The framework of our current institutions system is rotten, focused on presidential power, and must be discarded to a framework based on equality of rights, equality of opportunities, solidarity, freedom, respect, compassion.
TL;DR:
France is currently not as much a land of rights and successful social fights as some believe or claim it is. It is also not a land of freedom anymore. (See freedom of press rankings, for example.) It's rapidly (d)evolving into a fully fledged capitalist owned, highly repressive, police state.
There are reasons for despair, but also some reasons for hope. All is not lost, but the fight will be arduous.
Yep. Brazil has both free healthcare and private insurance, and most of the time private is better, but only because they're directly competing with something that costs nothing. They gotta keep their prices reasonable to be attractive.
Because in the corrupt US market that would devolve into you either having private insurance, or expect to wait 3 years to get anything done and expect to get mrsa when you do.
The free option would be utter trash, to the point where it would be nearly unusable.
The private sector has actually been nudging things that way for quite a few years now up in Canada.
Medical care shouldn't be a class system. Flat out.
oh no, my private insurance, which only gave life saving measure to an astonishing number of people who are alive and thriving today because one of their CEOs got shot in the fucking face, deservedly
The only thing that we can statistically, empirically prove from that incident is that shooting insurance CEOs in the face provide a net positive for society.
and this theorem could be extrapolated into other segments too, besides healthcare.
Which is why they are so desperate to convict luigi, and why i'm so shocked they havent arranged an "accident" for him yet.
We have generations of data from countries all over the world with universal healthcare. It costs the people less, undeniably; there's zero benefit to for-profit private insurance... for people, anyway (not corporations).
I'm not positive, but I think USA is the last "western nation" without it. So... US taxpayers actually send billions to other nations all over the globe, all of which have better healthcare. Nice.
Even Mexico has universal healthcare, soon they'll be trying to end American migration...
Oh my God, it just dawned on me. Trump was right... Mexico will pay for the wall! Trump's lowering US citizen's standard of living severely so that they will have flee over the border by the millions and viola! Wall.
My only qualm with it is whenever the Republicans get into office, they will weaken or destroy it. If we didn't have scumbags in office, and scumbags voting for said scumbags, it would be amazing. Universal healthcare is absolutely the way.
there's zero benefit to for-profit private insurance... for people, anyway (not corporations
In germany there are a lot of benefits through.
Less waiting-time, broader choice of treatment, better service in hospitals, a room for yourself instead of a shared room, and also a wider choice of places to go.
And in the end it's even cheaper than public health. At least beyond a certain income - threshold. Highly unfair, but...
A national law against child labor was passed in 1916, but it was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1918. A 1919 law was also overturned. In the 1920s, an effort to pass a constitutional amendment failed, because of opposition from the South and from Catholics. The Fair Labor Standards Act (part of the New Deal) in 1938 finally ended child labor in factories, mines, and other occupations. Child labor has always been a factor in agriculture and that continues into the 21st century. — Wikipedia
Something tells me if we did a complete archive search of NYT (and, for that matter, WSJ), circa 1910-1940, we'd find that it has, indeed, defended child labor in the US.
Yeah, states rights tends to come into play when ethical protections are opposed. Slavery abolition, and abortion access come to mind. We may see it again regarding gay marriage.
Curiously, the same players who oppose all these things are not for states rights when it comes to cannabis access.
I can only imagine what voting for a president or such would have been like back then. Voting for a local congress person, okay you might have known them or know someone who might know them. But the president, you were told who they were by what... 1 newspaper? Unless your family was paying for more than one, aka if your family knew to switch somehow
Olde Thimey federal candidates, including presidential candidates, actually traveled on the campaign trail, and would go town-to-town, make stump speeches (often on literal stumps) and gladhand by the hundreds. So the people often got to hear the candidates answer questions relevant to their own districts.
These remote media-only campaigns are unique to the post-radio age.
Yes, but admittedly, the sector would plunge in terms of revenues and profit. What will be left is much smaller than what they have today.
One of the biggest and longest rip-off scheme in history would end quite abruptly.
Now from an economic standpoint, that's as much money available to consumers that was previously going almost straight to shareholders with a limited return. That could be huge!
Unfortunately our morass of a healthcare system is deeper than insurance - medical device companies, big pharma (&PBMs), venture-capital-owned hospitals, and more all take their cut. Universal health care would not end the rip-off. But it would be an excellent first step.
It's not possible to approve all care. Taxpayers will, through representative lawmakers, allot a certain amount of money to healthcare, and within that budget, decisions must be made. The realistic goal is not to have every possible treatment always approved, it's to have a moderately high floor of care that everyone has as a baseline.
The realistic goal is not to have every possible treatment always approved
If a private insurer approves it, the presumption is of medical necessity. If care is being allocated based on "affordability" rather than "necessity" or "net social benefit" then we're still defining health care as a luxury in some capacity.
"Sorry, we didn't allocate resources to you because your private sector salary/passive income wasn't high enough" is an indication of policy failure in a socialist system.
The "realistic" goal is to provide maximum utility at minimal social cost. Not to provide maximum comfort to the highest status individuals.
There are some things which should not be privatised. Several reasons, mostly conflict of interest. Government needs to run the country, so politicians, military, police, tax dept, national intelligence, national education and health are some things which run clear to my bleeding obvious state of mind. Oh and transport, imagine if people needed to buy their own land, to pay to build a road, to travel on. Heaven forbid, but just extrapolating extreme capitalism.
I think there will always be a market for private health services, but governments need to provide a comprehensive and equitable public health system, for free or little cost.
I don't like the idea of the state having a monopoly on violence.
Yeah, there needs to be some level of military, and some level of local law enforcement...but police powers and protections need to be pulled back, to the level that private security has today.
Or private security needs to be risen up to be as empowered and protected as the police. I don't think that will work out quite as well, though.
I lost my job at the end of February, and have been enrolled in the affordable care insurance program ever since. Let me tell you, it's almost less than having no insurance. I got charged $1.1k for my COVID booster. I got charged full price for my dental cleaning. My current "insurance" has denied every single thing I've submitted. I still have to pay them $500 a week though. Want to talk to them on the phone to resolve claims? Good fucking luck.
Make sure to check if hospitals in your city/state have forgiveness programs. When my wife was out of work we were able to get 80% of the bill written off. I make $100k a year and still qualify for like 40% forgiveness just for submitting paperwork.
You got a covid shot and you paid for that 🤣🤣🤣🤣 made my day lol!!!! Here they were giving 100eur for people to cone to take it🤣 and there were morans who took a shot. Mostly are ill now. And you paid for that 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
That’s peak ignorance. Plenty of countries with universal heathcare have a thriving private medical insurance industry. The thing is they cannot force the scam level prices they do in the US, because private insurance is a ‘nice to have’ instead of a ‘must have’ thing.
Comparing Universal Healthcare to Prohibition is the single worst pro-universal-healthcare take I've ever heard. Prohibition nearly broke this country. People lost their faith in the constitution, crime skyrocketed, people started dying from poorly distilled liquor and poisoned ethanol. It was a constitutional disaster.
Your other examples were acceptable, but I'd maybe leave the puritan moralizing constitutional amendment out of any future comparisons.
It is nontheless a precedent for a massive reworking of the US economy by way of outlawing particular kinds of business activity.
Also 'constitutional disaster' and 'skyrocketing (white collar) crime' describe at the very least the last 6 years, so... its apt.
And... an actual serious problem that would happen if we did Universal Healthcare right now is that this would reduce paperwork and bureacracy so much that you'd lose about a million or two million jobs.
That's how much of a wasteful behemoth our current private system is, that many bullshit jobs, that many consumer incomes in a consumption based economy.
To realistically do a Universal Healthcare switch in the US, to be responsible, you would need something like the CCC or JobCorp or AmeriCorp on steroids, otherwise you'd cause a recession.
We could also maybe ban private prisons, as a business model, but to my knowledge there's never been a federal / nation wide legislation push to do that.
Or, maybe we could try to actually fix the car centric nature of the US by doing something like... mandatory full drivers liscense retest every 5 years, every 3 years past 65, every single year past 75, and any time you get any traffic violation of any kind, you must fully retest within 1 year, or your liscense is revoked. If your income is below AMI, testing is free.
If that worked as intended, well, we'd have a lot less cars and car related businesses, which are also a considerable chunk of megacorp and small business activity.
Or you could go further than the ... 92? Assault Weapons Ban and actually rework the 2nd Ammendment. If you could somehow do that, well again, megacorps and a considerable number of small businesses would have greatly reduced demand for civillian firearms, thus people lose jobs.
Anytime you massively rework part of an economy, by substantial new policy... you are reworking the economy, society broadly.
My point was that precedent for doing that kind of thing does infact exist.
And as for abolishing an industry that seemed too big to fail, while having already been abandoned by the rest of the world as horribly immoral... We do have one very big, shameful precedent.
medical costs with private healthcare are one third of my monthly costs. I actually did the math. Its not so much if you don't use it but my wife has medical issues and im getting old. It literally is a mortgage.
It's a false claim. Medicare Advantage (Part D) is private insurance to cover more than Medicare. Medicare for all would be a public/private split, where the private part is generally considered a luxury benefit.
Part D and Medicare Advantage are different things.
Part D is straight Medicare (or, rather, the pharmaceutical part of Medicare...save for benzos and barbiturates). Advantage is a private insurance that replaces Medicare.
Honestly often not an advantage. I don't know if things have changed but when I read up on it (while working in pharmacy billing), it sounded to me like basically the definition of a scam.
Advantage is Part C and it's largely just a scam. Overpriced private administration of the policy that mostly exists to deny it's members care available under Plan A and B.
What's the name of that game in which the player's task is to approve people crossing the border into or out of the Soviet Union (or was it East Germany?)? Someone needs to do that except you're a medical director deciding whether to approve or deny someone's claim.
the early part of the article is about change management. It WOULD be highly disruptive to a large part of the economy:
But doing away with an entire industry would also be profoundly disruptive. The private health insurance business employs at least a half a million people, covers about 250 million Americans, and generates roughly a trillion dollars in revenues. Its companies’ stocks are a staple of the mutual funds that make up millions of Americans’ retirement savings.
Such a change would shake the entire health care system, which makes up a fifth of the United States economy, as hospitals, doctors, nursing homes and pharmaceutical companies would have to adapt to a new set of rules. Most Americans would have a new insurer — the federal government — and many would find the health insurance stocks in their retirement portfolios much less valuable.
But removing the industry that increases costs and extracts rents (to benefit investors and creates worse healthcare outcomes) is kind of the Point…
Many supporters of this approach see elimination of private insurance as a key feature, not a bug, meant to improve the program’s efficiency and equity by streamlining the health care system and weakening profit motives. With a single insurer covering every patient, hospitals and doctors could spend less time and money complying with differing policies, negotiating contracts, and filing forms to get paid.
“It’s worth it,” said Adam Gaffney, the president of Physicians for a National Health Program, which supports single-payer health care and helped design Ms. Jayapal’s bill. “Because we are not going to get to true universal health care without the greater efficiency of a single-payer system.”
I think the commentary is fair throughout the first half of the article… but then there’s some real lack of critical thinking (emphasis added):
Their plans would include nearly every doctor and hospital in the United States and provide generous benefits, including dental care and hearing aids, and would not require patients to pay any out-of-pocket cost to see a doctor. The federal government, of course, would have to cover those benefits, and would need to raise taxes to pay for them.
“Raising taxes” is present as a boogeyman here… taxes bad (they do poll poorly in general) but the key advantage of a single payer system is less bureaucracy (I don’t have n-teams to support doing the same job differently) and more streamlined rules. I don’t have to have more administrators than medical providers in hospital systems. They can focus on care instead of negotiating prices
In France, we have a mix of things. State generally covers 70% of the major public health fundamentals (long duration illness gets 100%), company benefit (provided mostly by non-profits) to complete and for intermediate stuff like orthondontics, and I think some additional private insurance for what's left uncovered.
So I think they may be exaggerating in thinking it's either one or the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France
Private insurance employs 2x the number of people covered by the insurance?? Wow, wtf. No wonder it's expensive. Your premiums are basically paying someone's entire salary.
I'm curious as well. It just states a fact (well, it would abolish a lot of private insurance but not all, headlines aren't always perfect), why is the assumption in the comments that it is somehow in favor of private insurance?
All the big media companies seem to be owned by republican money men.
Not having a president for something doesn’t mean anything. It’s one of the lamest arguments for protecting the people that are sitting on lazy money/power.
Then maybe some kind of job placement program should be made available for all the folks who would stand to lose their private insurance jobs, and that's written into the transition plan. I'm sure the government is going to need help running Medicare for All.
All the folks who were paid to reject claims could be transferred to examine puplic subsidies applications by oligarchs corps. Jut putting, that on the table...
On one hand, sure. But at the same time those people should really already get another fucking job and not help that shithole industry. Their paycheck comes from stealing other people’s paychecks to enrich the parasitic investor class.
I had a job for a “Medicare advantage” company for a little bit, and it’s the only job I quit without another one lined up. They were fucking scum.
Fuck that industry, the boards of directors would all be hanged if we lived in a just society.
Also, even with countries that have a public option private insurance is usually still allowed. There are zero good arguments against it and a lot of superfluous nonsense meant to muddy the waters.
This is like 7 or 8 years old now but more importantly, it's just a statement of fact, not an argument
Wtf is wrong with you guys where you just assume every statement is some kind of personal dig?
The article asks Economists about the predicted impact of switching to universal healthcare (to every day people) beyond the treatment they get.
For example, what happens to all of the people who work for these private insurance companies? What about retirement plans? Lots of people have retirement plans based on stocks. How much of their retirement stock money is tied up in private insurance companies?
It's not an argument for, or against, anything. Just literally someone asking an Economist, lets pretend we made this change tomorrow, what would the impact be?
And the answer is, "we don't know because nothing like this has ever happened in the United States before"
Typically Economists can look at past events to predict what an upcoming event would look like. But there's literally nothing close to this that's ever taken place so while they can all guess it's literally just that, a guess. There's nothing in the past to compare it to
And this question gets more complicated when we ask what exactly the change would be. Should it be a slow, incremental change, or a sweeping set of legislation that makes massive changes seemingly overnight? Is the government ready to provide this coverage or would it find itself overwhelmed and unable to provide service fast enough and so needs time to build internal infrastructure?
It's just information.
The person who commented is a fucking idiot who clearly didn't read the article and you're all idiots for going along with her shit before reading the article yourselves too
The person who commented is a fucking idiot who clearly didn't read the article
Let's assume that everything you just said about the article is true, without any flaws. Why would that make her response idiotic?
If we mentioned the impact that cutting defense spending would have on Raytheon, Lockheed, and Boeing... "Oh no, not my military industrial complex..."
If we mentioned the impact that a new public housing program would have on the housing market... "Oh no, not the sector of the financial market profiting from the endlessly increasing price of a basic human need..."
I understand that these things would have major financial impacts. I also understand the value of NYT writing an article about the nuances of where it would have upsides and downsides. But also, the original commenter isn't criticizing that analysis. She's criticizing the business model of private insurance. Your response just leads me to ask,
Wtf is wrong with you guys where you just assume every statement is some kind of personal dig?
It makes her response idiotic because it has nothing to do with the article
The article isn't pro, or anti, anything. It's 8 years old, probably around the time of the presidential election, and so, in context, it was a question of, "what if Biden wins and actually does get rid of privatized health care, what would that look like to everyday people and the economy?"
It makes her response idiotic because it has nothing to do with the article
It's not a rebuttal of the article, no... but it IS definitely in the same topic as the article.
Twitter is a microblogging platform... not a debate platform. If you assume that she is trying to provide a counterargument in 140 characters or less, then yes, it would seem idiotic.
Are we making that assumption?
EDIT: Just to acknowledge that I read your response, and I don't wish to respond to it.
There is no need to be coy, any well educated adult knows factual statements can be used for misleading purposes. Having an article title focused on the unprecedented nature of universal healthcare is a deliberate choice designed to negatively polarize the reader against it.
By 2019, we've known that universal healthcare would save hundreds of billions of dollars. As for the problems highlighted in the article, those are also easily addressed and have been many times by anyone seriously considering the topic. The new system that takes the place of private, for profit system will still need secretaries and logistical technicians. The main group that would be discarded is the useless middlemen who simply profit from the system. Retirement plans? A major concern of the elderly retirees is healthcare, which would be much cheaper with a universal plan. The money saved on healthcare can be used in other areas.
The article is focused mostly on the negative side effects the rich and wealthy beneficiaries would experience and tries to spread those fears to the common working person through needless fear mongering and a hyperfixation on the opinions of the wealthy. Of course the parasites would have negative opinions about being removed. This article is absolutely an argument against universal healthcare and it is absurd of you to claim otherwise. The US is the wealthiest country in the history of mankind and it is the only modern OECD nation without single payer healthcare.
I'm just telling you what the article said. You still didn't try to look it up and read it through, and yet you responded anyway.
Incredible
had you looked it up you would have seen that they did indeed talk about other countries and tried to imagine how this all might play out depending on which model the US adapts or if we take some kind of hybrid approach
But I mean, who needs to listen to an expert in the field of economics when you can just pretend like you already know everything? Stay stupid
Having past events to look at doesn’t inherently make analysis of a sufficiently complex issue any more certain, it’s just another data point. The title was specifically used to draw an emotional response and it achieved that goal by at least one person. Concluding the argument with ‘there’s no precedent so we can’t say’ is lazy at best but the reality is the title was chosen for the exact reason you blame the audience for delivering on. Tons of information can be broken down and analyzed in a way that even aspects of it would have comparable historical events. I doubt the economists that did the research would devolve their efforts into ‘eh, no clue, never happened before, we’re really only able to have ideas about things that have historical patterns which is really inconvenient’.
What the commenter was doing is expressing frustration over a failed system the article is covering. Calling someone stupid for expressing frustrations in an online comment over a failed system the article is about seems detached from reality or overly emotional and self centered. Stop jerking yourself off sometimes and recognize people will respond to things with emotions at times, especially on something with the barrier of entry being ‘can access the internet’.
Since you’re going to continue attacking random strangers based on almost no information about them, you come across as a miserable judgmental person. Not everyone cares to do a research project before making a comment on the internet and no amount of people with shit attitudes and a superiority complex is going to change that.
The amount of you that are proud to admit that you don't do research is astonishing.
You think it's a good thing that you don't read articles, look up statistics to fact check what you heard, etc... you think those of us that do are lame
You're proud to be ill-informed and stupid as fuck. Reacting to rage-bait headlines and believing what celebrities tell you
Typically Economists can look at past events to predict what an upcoming event would look like. But there’s literally nothing close to this that’s ever taken place so while they can all guess it’s literally just that, a guess.
They can still look at past events to predict the upcoming event; we have scores of examples and generations of data for other nations all over the world. It's been done, many times. It's not magic, there's absolutely no mystery.
For example, what happens to all of the people who work for these private insurance companies?
They have to get three jobs like everybody else. This is happening constantly everywhere, why is that a concern now? What makes this the line? Get another job, prole, same as it ever was.
What about retirement plans? Lots of people have retirement plans based on stocks. How much of their retirement stock money is tied up in private insurance companies?
Invest in something else, done and done. Those who invested too much in health insurance companies will lose a lot of money. Standard operating procedure for everyone with everything in USA. No matter what, there will be winners and losers, someone always makes bank while others go broke.
It's not. The people in this sub didn't read the article, they're just reacting to the headline
It's a 7 year old news article about the potential economic impacts of proposed sweeping reforms to health care in the United States.
It's literally just an article for economists and investors about potential changes to the market
The quote isn't even the focus of the article, it's just one guy pointing out that there's really nothing to base our predictions on because nothing like these proposed changes has happened before. Health Care is a trillion dollar industry that employs over half a million people nation wide and these companies stocks are popular among retirement accounts; what happens if we just wipe all of that out? Is it better to do it quickly? Slowly?
Nobody is saying single-payer health care is bad, in fact the article even points out the positives, it's questioning what happens to peoples retirements funds and jobs and what impact would that have on the market as a whole and the economy in both the long and short term
Retirement accounts are a real issue, but could be solved by having the top wealthiest shareholders pay out to the poorest shareholders until retirements are guaranteed. This could also be combined with Social Security reform that requires wealthy people to contribute more and extract less from the system.
Presumably many of the actual healthcare workers and some of the admin workers would still be needed in a nationalized system. The insurance agents and related admin can all get other jobs. No one dreams of being an insurance agent as a kid, these people would be free to pursue more meaningful and useful work.
None of these are insurmountable problems for a government that actually serves the people instead of money. This article is just prevarication to cover our current governments inaction.
Health insurance in this country is absolutely fucking stupid... I went with the HDHP this year after trying the 'premium' option from my workplace last year, and holy fuck, the HDHP actually costs LESS than paying for the higher tier plans. It's fucking awful that I have to pay 10k before my shit is covered, but I still spend less overall on this plan.
There's no precedent for it in US history. There are American countries with universal healthcare. There are countries throughout the world who have similar successful healthcare systems.
Oh, on top of that I have national health care which cost me nothing. At dentist, depending of what job need to be done,but it can be between 15 eu to 100 per teeth.
172 Comments
einlander@lemmy.world · 147 pts · 1d
And still tries to decline your claims.
thesohoriots@lemmy.world · 37 pts · 1d
There was that little bit of time we got some claims through. Something about an Italian plumber.
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 5h
My sister had her gallbladder removed a decade or two ago. It was basically exploding or something in the er. Really disgusting amounts of pain.
Anyway, she was immediately denied as they couldn't determine whether her gallbladder removal was elective or not. The doctor said something like "well fuck that, that's why we have a team of lawyers."
I think that's a pretty succinct summary. Without one or more lawyers at your disposal we might as well all get fucked.
thefluffiest@feddit.nl · 117 pts · 1d
If you were still wondering if the NYT shills for the oligarchs…
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 1d
Always have
takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 1d
Well the title "Medicare For All Would Abolish Private Insurance" is true though.
The big question is why should we care? Why should this be our problem? Why should our hard earned money be used for profit instead working only as an insurance pool?
Things change, and one has to adapt (just look at the LLM crazy), same with insurance companies. They can similarly adapt and do something different, for example start offering non essential insurances that would be on top of the M4A. Not replacements though. Medicare "Advantage" should be abolished as well.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
But, they're liberals!
/s
raptore39@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 1d
I'm starting to think they are putting in subliminal messages, making their base ask ask "hang on, why is this bad?" Much like Fox has the progressive talking points front and center.
FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 79 pts · 1d
Abolition would destroy the cotton industry! There is no precedent in American history!
Skyrmir@lemmy.world · 63 pts · 1d
My wife needs a surgery thats likely to cost 18 to 20 grand without insurance, and I have to do some really careful math to figure out if putting her on my insurance would actually save us anything.
Most likely flying to Mexico for a week to get it done would be cheaper too.
Drusas@fedia.io · 16 pts · 1d
I'm here waiting on insurance to approve a medication I need, like, eight months ago and which costs over a hundred thousand dollars per year (before insurance gets the negotiated price).
Skyrmir@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 1d
First set of pills was $483 with insurance. Bought the refill as uninsured, it was $38.
Our insurance industry is so broken it's really just unfathomable.
Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works · 22 pts · 1d
My grandfather needed some medication. Only 3 months, but over $400 a month. I found a Canadian pharmacy, bought 3 months of it, had the doctor fax the script there, and it was less than $300 for the 3 months. It was quite literally a lifesaver for him and their finances.
Drusas@fedia.io · 1 pts · 5h
The prescription I need is somewhat new/niche, but I will look into this.
Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 4h
The one I used was called The Great North Pharmacy. A lot of them wouldn't take card payments for some reason and would only accept a mailed check. It didn't sit right with me. They called me to do the standard "pharmacist overview" of the medication, and it arrived fairly quickly. I'm not trying to shill for them, but they were really good for what we needed. Good luck.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 1d
My brother spent eight fucking weeks with a constant migraine unable to walk or even stand up without falling over, before his insurance finally approved the MRI that discovered the golf-ball-sized tumor in his brain. Muigi Langione is all I can say.
Drusas@fedia.io · 3 pts · 5h
I never thought that I would see a legit folk hero in my time.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 58 pts · 1d
Stopping the orphan crushing machine would abolish the orphan crushing industry. There's no precedent in American history.
Medicare for All would save a trillion dollars and 114,000 American lives, both annually. Fuck the insurance racket.
GeirGrusom@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 1d
Insurance in general should be a public aervice rather than private enterprise and it should not be used for medical care at all.
Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 21h
The public service should provide a universal floor for citizens. There are quasi-medical services like massage that both have medical benefits and are also used more as a spa treatment, and people with pets are finding pet medical insurance more attractive these days. I think areas like that can make more sense to keep private.
Noodle07@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
Think of all the bombs the US could buy for Israel with all that money !!
Womble@piefed.world · 48 pts · 1d
As well as this being stupid for the reasons given, its also just flat out wrong. There is no reason why you couldn't have additional healthcare insurance to act as a top-up/faster non-essential care/nicer facilities when you are in hospital. That's how it works in the UK, even with completely nationalized, free at the point of use healthcare there is still room for private insurance, it just has to earn its place rather than being a complete leach.
Th4tGuyII@fedia.io · 16 pts · 1d
Exactly this. Universal healthcare still leaves room for private facilities and insurance, it just forces a minimum standard on the market that they clearly don't want in the US
KryptonNerd@slrpnk.net · 14 pts · 1d
I will say though that the presence of private healthcare in the UK does make me very uncomfortable, especially with how much the NHS is struggling for money
MonkeMischief@lemmy.today · 17 pts · 1d
It kinda feels like our postal service in the U.S.
They defund it, then complain about it, then start ranting that it "Doesn't even make a profit" even though the whole point is that it's supposed to be an affordable and accessible mail service.
They're even doing the same thing with schools. The entire conservo-righty playbook anymore is to get rid of our public services so they and their rich buddies have more to gain at our expense.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 8 pts · 1d
kinda funny with post because if it was done totally privately the more rural and remote you get the higher the cost would be.
MonkeMischief@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 1d
Precisely!
It's so weird how the "Communism is when the government gives people stuff" crowd just so happens to be concentrated in places where, were the surrounding states and federal government to stop subsidizing public services or industries or funding, they'd be almost completely destitute over night.
Like you said, it just wouldn't be worth it to private interests to reach an already-poorer population in the middle of nowhere with services like hospitals, shipping, or telecom.
I really wish they could understand this. Not in a "See what we do for you?" kind of way, but more like "See? Things are actually better when we're working together with government to take care of each other." Kind of way...
If they succeed and all those benefits get pulled in favor of private parasites, they'll be even poorer, even angrier, and still blame the Democrats.
jtrek@startrek.website · 3 pts · 6h
This is how conservatives operate. The wealthy want more wealth and don't care who gets hurt. Their bootlickers are drunk on authoritarianism, and get off on bowing to their superiors and kicking the people under them. There's something wrong with the bootlickers brains. You'd probably be an asshole, too, if you came every time you bowed down to a rich man or hurt someone poorer than you.
untropvertimide@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 18h
The same strategy is used in France. Our social welfare, including retirement funding and medical care, is being dismantled this way.
MonkeMischief@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 4h
That's awful! :(
We're pulling for you guys! Anyone will a brain here in the U.S looks up to and admires how fiercely the French people defend their rights. You don't roll over and let the suits do as they please.
Please keep being that shining example to us all! The world is very dark for the working person right now. We need you!
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité! ✊🇫🇷
untropvertimide@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 3h
Thank you, but the pessimist I am cannot reassure you on this point.
Currently France and most of its population are very far from that fierce image, and that's not new.
Our so-called "leaders" follow objectives and methods similar to their U.S. counterparts, with an apparent lag / delay. Our ten years president is a neo liberal with also some traditionalist catholic views on social norms. The asymetry in apparent power is such that those politicians don't have too much to fear from the general population. (For now at least.) They just have to get enough people to vote for them once in a while, and manipulative communcation campaign do the job real fine.
Demonstrations and strikes don't often work: they are generally ignored, circumvented, or smeared, criminalized, and sometimes violently repressed. (With accusations of terrorism). We even have a very violent "police" unit seemingly fully dedicated to beat up demonstrators. (The "BRAV-M".) More powers, more tools, more weaponery and legal protections are given to the police (or similar) forces.
The fatigue and discouragement from our worsening living conditions depowered the fights for general interest causes. (against domination and exploitation systems, for example)
But !.. the same worsening living conditions are becoming bad enough that people become more afraid of being passive than of the consequences of opposing the "elites" and their goons. I sure hope the balance will tip in favor of those who fight for a better life before the faschist-style authoritarism is fully installed.
2027's elections will be quite a battleground, but honestly we're in need of more than some "providential" elected president with a good program. The framework of our current institutions system is rotten, focused on presidential power, and must be discarded to a framework based on equality of rights, equality of opportunities, solidarity, freedom, respect, compassion.
TL;DR:
France is currently not as much a land of rights and successful social fights as some believe or claim it is. It is also not a land of freedom anymore. (See freedom of press rankings, for example.) It's rapidly (d)evolving into a fully fledged capitalist owned, highly repressive, police state. There are reasons for despair, but also some reasons for hope. All is not lost, but the fight will be arduous.
im_fine_sandy@nord.pub · 8 pts · 1d
Yep. Same in Australia.
I think 20 years ago an American would have told you they have the freedom to choose the level of cover they want, starting from none at all.
Now things have deteriorated through collusion or corruption or price fixing or whatever.
They've made so much money they have too much influence to do away with them.
Abyssian@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
That one guy on the news found a way. I imagine it wouldn't even take a thousand of us following that lead before things began to change.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 1d
Probably wouldn't even take 10. I say 5. Things already started shifting with the 1.
SalamenceFury@piefed.social · 7 pts · 1d
Yep. Brazil has both free healthcare and private insurance, and most of the time private is better, but only because they're directly competing with something that costs nothing. They gotta keep their prices reasonable to be attractive.
helvetpuli@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 1d
Being a complete leech is very profitable.
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 1d
Because in the corrupt US market that would devolve into you either having private insurance, or expect to wait 3 years to get anything done and expect to get mrsa when you do.
The free option would be utter trash, to the point where it would be nearly unusable.
The private sector has actually been nudging things that way for quite a few years now up in Canada.
Medical care shouldn't be a class system. Flat out.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world · 46 pts · 1d
oh no, my private insurance, which only gave life saving measure to an astonishing number of people who are alive and thriving today because one of their CEOs got shot in the fucking face, deservedly
Weydemeyer@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 1d
Had me in the first half…
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
The only thing that we can statistically, empirically prove from that incident is that shooting insurance CEOs in the face provide a net positive for society.
and this theorem could be extrapolated into other segments too, besides healthcare.
Which is why they are so desperate to convict luigi, and why i'm so shocked they havent arranged an "accident" for him yet.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Some are clever enough to know that killing him will make him into a martyr for millions...
I suspect that they will try something more devious... he needs to be publicly humiliated somehow.
jtrek@startrek.website · 2 pts · 6h
I thought the CEO was shot in the back. If we want to be scientific about it, we'd need data about them being shot in the face, too.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 24m
Right, because shooting in the face could give even better results. Line up the CEOs because we have some experiments to conduct!
zarkanian@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 21h
What would that accomplish? They want to have the trial and conviction to make an example out of him.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 1d
We have generations of data from countries all over the world with universal healthcare. It costs the people less, undeniably; there's zero benefit to for-profit private insurance... for people, anyway (not corporations).
I'm not positive, but I think USA is the last "western nation" without it. So... US taxpayers actually send billions to other nations all over the globe, all of which have better healthcare. Nice.
Even Mexico has universal healthcare, soon they'll be trying to end American migration...
Oh my God, it just dawned on me. Trump was right... Mexico will pay for the wall! Trump's lowering US citizen's standard of living severely so that they will have flee over the border by the millions and viola! Wall.
Brilliant.
Raiderkev@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 20h
My only qualm with it is whenever the Republicans get into office, they will weaken or destroy it. If we didn't have scumbags in office, and scumbags voting for said scumbags, it would be amazing. Universal healthcare is absolutely the way.
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5h
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 20h
Nah, some do dual payer, which is less bad than USA, but still not true universal.
It's basically universal healthcare but with a small excess on it, usually something quite low like €100
Dyskolos@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 6h
In germany there are a lot of benefits through. Less waiting-time, broader choice of treatment, better service in hospitals, a room for yourself instead of a shared room, and also a wider choice of places to go. And in the end it's even cheaper than public health. At least beyond a certain income - threshold. Highly unfair, but...
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 22h
We don't care. Bankrupt America to death.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 17h
Who is this "we" you're talking about?
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 9h
Not you, obviously.
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 32 pts · 1d
A national law against child labor was passed in 1916, but it was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1918. A 1919 law was also overturned. In the 1920s, an effort to pass a constitutional amendment failed, because of opposition from the South and from Catholics. The Fair Labor Standards Act (part of the New Deal) in 1938 finally ended child labor in factories, mines, and other occupations. Child labor has always been a factor in agriculture and that continues into the 21st century. — Wikipedia
Something tells me if we did a complete archive search of NYT (and, for that matter, WSJ), circa 1910-1940, we'd find that it has, indeed, defended child labor in the US.
prime_number_314159@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
https://flippedtips.com/plegal/save/clin1910s.html
Under "Stunned Nation Reacts" I guess they argued it should be left up to the states... Which is a defense of it, in the context of the time.
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 17h
Yeah, states rights tends to come into play when ethical protections are opposed. Slavery abolition, and abortion access come to mind. We may see it again regarding gay marriage.
Curiously, the same players who oppose all these things are not for states rights when it comes to cannabis access.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
I can only imagine what voting for a president or such would have been like back then. Voting for a local congress person, okay you might have known them or know someone who might know them. But the president, you were told who they were by what... 1 newspaper? Unless your family was paying for more than one, aka if your family knew to switch somehow
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 18h
Olde Thimey federal candidates, including presidential candidates, actually traveled on the campaign trail, and would go town-to-town, make stump speeches (often on literal stumps) and gladhand by the hundreds. So the people often got to hear the candidates answer questions relevant to their own districts.
These remote media-only campaigns are unique to the post-radio age.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 17h
it's 80 or 90% owned by the same family from that time too.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 30 pts · 1d
It's also a flatout lie. It wouldn't abolish private insurance at all. Nytimes is dogshit journalism.
BilliamBoberts@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 1d
A blatant lie as well, plenty of countries with universal healthcare sustain a private health insurance industry.
matlag@sh.itjust.works · 19 pts · 1d
Yes, but admittedly, the sector would plunge in terms of revenues and profit. What will be left is much smaller than what they have today.
One of the biggest and longest rip-off scheme in history would end quite abruptly.
Now from an economic standpoint, that's as much money available to consumers that was previously going almost straight to shareholders with a limited return. That could be huge!
Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 21h
Unfortunately our morass of a healthcare system is deeper than insurance - medical device companies, big pharma (&PBMs), venture-capital-owned hospitals, and more all take their cut. Universal health care would not end the rip-off. But it would be an excellent first step.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
More an indictment of their mediocre reform than a testament to their accommodation.
Why do you still need private insurance in a public system unless it's two-tiered and rationing care by wealth level.
Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 21h
It's not possible to approve all care. Taxpayers will, through representative lawmakers, allot a certain amount of money to healthcare, and within that budget, decisions must be made. The realistic goal is not to have every possible treatment always approved, it's to have a moderately high floor of care that everyone has as a baseline.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 19h
If a private insurer approves it, the presumption is of medical necessity. If care is being allocated based on "affordability" rather than "necessity" or "net social benefit" then we're still defining health care as a luxury in some capacity.
"Sorry, we didn't allocate resources to you because your private sector salary/passive income wasn't high enough" is an indication of policy failure in a socialist system.
The "realistic" goal is to provide maximum utility at minimal social cost. Not to provide maximum comfort to the highest status individuals.
bold_atlas@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 1d
Abolishing slavery destroyed an entire industry too. There's your fucking precedent you piece of shit NYT blood sucker.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 1d
Pwned
im_fine_sandy@nord.pub · 19 pts · 1d
I hate when things that are obviously inefficient have to be supported just because they exist.
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
It's hard to defend the status quo otherwise.
aesthelete@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 1d
Oh now we care about precedents for some reason.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
There is precedent for paying for healthcare with chickens.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
AKA the status quo that keep the filthy rich in power, and the poors at the grindstone.
architect@thelemmy.club · 4 pts · 1d
They are always bringing up precedent as if it means a damned thing.
Do what’s fucking right.
grainfed@quokk.au · 18 pts · 1d
There are some things which should not be privatised. Several reasons, mostly conflict of interest. Government needs to run the country, so politicians, military, police, tax dept, national intelligence, national education and health are some things which run clear to my bleeding obvious state of mind. Oh and transport, imagine if people needed to buy their own land, to pay to build a road, to travel on. Heaven forbid, but just extrapolating extreme capitalism.
im_fine_sandy@nord.pub · 7 pts · 1d
I think there will always be a market for private health services, but governments need to provide a comprehensive and equitable public health system, for free or little cost.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
I don't like the idea of the state having a monopoly on violence.
Yeah, there needs to be some level of military, and some level of local law enforcement...but police powers and protections need to be pulled back, to the level that private security has today.
Or private security needs to be risen up to be as empowered and protected as the police. I don't think that will work out quite as well, though.
Xerxos@lemmy.ml · 17 pts · 21h
Forbidding orphan-crushing-machines would destroy the orphan-crushing-machine industry! The horror!
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one · 3 pts · 5h
I have investments in the orphan-crushing-machine industry! We can't regulate it!
anon_8675309@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 19h
If everything had to have precedent, nothing would ever change.
Rooster326@programming.dev · 6 pts · 17h
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 6h
You just described why conservatives exist.
toxicbubble@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 1d
remember when NYT made Sanders look like a far left radicalist
zarkanian@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 21h
Step 1: free healthcare for all
Step 2: re-education camps
Sanctus@anarchist.nexus · 16 pts · 1d
This post is crazy old shes probably paid over 130%
ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 13 pts · 15h
Except in every civilized country in the world.
FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 9h
'Murica ain't a civilised country
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 6h
Not much longer before they're even a country.
boaratio@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 1d
I lost my job at the end of February, and have been enrolled in the affordable care insurance program ever since. Let me tell you, it's almost less than having no insurance. I got charged $1.1k for my COVID booster. I got charged full price for my dental cleaning. My current "insurance" has denied every single thing I've submitted. I still have to pay them $500 a week though. Want to talk to them on the phone to resolve claims? Good fucking luck.
fishy@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 1d
Make sure to check if hospitals in your city/state have forgiveness programs. When my wife was out of work we were able to get 80% of the bill written off. I make $100k a year and still qualify for like 40% forgiveness just for submitting paperwork.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 2 pts · 1d
the denials are the worst part. insult to injury with all the costs.
Newhere@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 1d
Not a surprise Americans here are called a bit dump in general. Now I see why.
Newhere@lemmy.ml · -7 pts · 1d
You got a covid shot and you paid for that 🤣🤣🤣🤣 made my day lol!!!! Here they were giving 100eur for people to cone to take it🤣 and there were morans who took a shot. Mostly are ill now. And you paid for that 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Amberskin@europe.pub · 11 pts · 8h
That’s peak ignorance. Plenty of countries with universal heathcare have a thriving private medical insurance industry. The thing is they cannot force the scam level prices they do in the US, because private insurance is a ‘nice to have’ instead of a ‘must have’ thing.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5h
We even have it here. Medicare/aid supplemental insurance is a massive market.
VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2h
They do, and the article talks about that
You did read the article before forming an opinion about it right? Right???
stickyprimer@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 19h
“Abolish?” Pshaw. People even have private insurance in the EU under full government healthcare.
RagingRobot@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 19h
Yeah as if we could be so lucky to get rid of these leeches
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 5h
FurryMemesAccount@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 10h
They used to be unnecessary until fairly recently in France, in the grand scheme of things
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 1d
Right, there's no precedent in American history for declaring an entire class of business to be illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
I think you guys have maybe heard about this.
https://www.nytimes.com/1930/01/02/archives/prohibition.html
Oh hey look, yeah, you did!
You can not like it but can... can we not, with the blatant historical revisionism?
You could also just point out the Sherman AntiTrust Act, point at that, maybe.
Oh right we also banned gambling, tons of forms of gambling, back in the day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_the_United_States
PASPA
I wonder what the kalshi odds are on that happening again...?
Anyway uh, the Old Gray Lady needs to go to fuckin' bed now, thanks.
chewypoops@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
I'm gonna be real with you:
Comparing Universal Healthcare to Prohibition is the single worst pro-universal-healthcare take I've ever heard. Prohibition nearly broke this country. People lost their faith in the constitution, crime skyrocketed, people started dying from poorly distilled liquor and poisoned ethanol. It was a constitutional disaster.
Your other examples were acceptable, but I'd maybe leave the puritan moralizing constitutional amendment out of any future comparisons.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 23h
It's just precedent for the economic effects, I don't think they meant it to be a complete analogy or a point of advocacy.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1d
It is nontheless a precedent for a massive reworking of the US economy by way of outlawing particular kinds of business activity.
Also 'constitutional disaster' and 'skyrocketing (white collar) crime' describe at the very least the last 6 years, so... its apt.
And... an actual serious problem that would happen if we did Universal Healthcare right now is that this would reduce paperwork and bureacracy so much that you'd lose about a million or two million jobs.
That's how much of a wasteful behemoth our current private system is, that many bullshit jobs, that many consumer incomes in a consumption based economy.
To realistically do a Universal Healthcare switch in the US, to be responsible, you would need something like the CCC or JobCorp or AmeriCorp on steroids, otherwise you'd cause a recession.
We could also maybe ban private prisons, as a business model, but to my knowledge there's never been a federal / nation wide legislation push to do that.
Or, maybe we could try to actually fix the car centric nature of the US by doing something like... mandatory full drivers liscense retest every 5 years, every 3 years past 65, every single year past 75, and any time you get any traffic violation of any kind, you must fully retest within 1 year, or your liscense is revoked. If your income is below AMI, testing is free.
If that worked as intended, well, we'd have a lot less cars and car related businesses, which are also a considerable chunk of megacorp and small business activity.
Or you could go further than the ... 92? Assault Weapons Ban and actually rework the 2nd Ammendment. If you could somehow do that, well again, megacorps and a considerable number of small businesses would have greatly reduced demand for civillian firearms, thus people lose jobs.
Anytime you massively rework part of an economy, by substantial new policy... you are reworking the economy, society broadly.
My point was that precedent for doing that kind of thing does infact exist.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 23h
And as for abolishing an industry that seemed too big to fail, while having already been abandoned by the rest of the world as horribly immoral... We do have one very big, shameful precedent.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
M4A isn't even making supplemental insurance illegal. It's literally just extending Medicare to everyone.
ZMoney@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 8h
There is a precedent and it's called the VA. The military is the largest socialist organization in the US.
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
And NYT said Hitler was a reformed man after a brief stint in prison.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 7 pts · 1d
medical costs with private healthcare are one third of my monthly costs. I actually did the math. Its not so much if you don't use it but my wife has medical issues and im getting old. It literally is a mortgage.
humanspiral@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 1d
It's a false claim. Medicare Advantage (Part D) is private insurance to cover more than Medicare. Medicare for all would be a public/private split, where the private part is generally considered a luxury benefit.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 1d
Part D and Medicare Advantage are different things.
Part D is straight Medicare (or, rather, the pharmaceutical part of Medicare...save for benzos and barbiturates). Advantage is a private insurance that replaces Medicare.
Honestly often not an advantage. I don't know if things have changed but when I read up on it (while working in pharmacy billing), it sounded to me like basically the definition of a scam.
moustachio@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
Medicare advantage is a complete scam. It can deny more claims than government insurance and there’s really no accountability.
Medicare advantage was the scheme of George W. Bush’s admin to dismantle Medicare.
Spitefire@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Part D plans are all privately offered. The government does not offer a Part D plan like it does Part A and B.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
Advantage is Part C and it's largely just a scam. Overpriced private administration of the policy that mostly exists to deny it's members care available under Plan A and B.
eah@programming.dev · 6 pts · 23h
What's the name of that game in which the player's task is to approve people crossing the border into or out of the Soviet Union (or was it East Germany?)? Someone needs to do that except you're a medical director deciding whether to approve or deny someone's claim.
Edit: I'm thinking of Papers, Please.
Rooster326@programming.dev · 4 pts · 23h
And if you deny too many claims. You get Mangione'd
eah@programming.dev · 2 pts · 19h
Approve too many, you get fired.
brownsugga@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 4h
NYT are a fascist mouthpiece
rayyy@piefed.social · 5 pts · 5h
There is no president in history of insurance being so expensive and worthless.
oce@jlai.lu · 5 pts · 1d
What is the context of this quote? NYT's journalist editorial, someone from outside invited to write, someone quoted?
blueduck@piefed.social · 5 pts · 1d
Here’s a gift link to the 2019 article.
the early part of the article is about change management. It WOULD be highly disruptive to a large part of the economy:
But removing the industry that increases costs and extracts rents (to benefit investors and creates worse healthcare outcomes) is kind of the Point…
I think the commentary is fair throughout the first half of the article… but then there’s some real lack of critical thinking (emphasis added):
“Raising taxes” is present as a boogeyman here… taxes bad (they do poll poorly in general) but the key advantage of a single payer system is less bureaucracy (I don’t have n-teams to support doing the same job differently) and more streamlined rules. I don’t have to have more administrators than medical providers in hospital systems. They can focus on care instead of negotiating prices
oce@jlai.lu · 5 pts · 1d
Thank you for providing the link and quotes!
In France, we have a mix of things. State generally covers 70% of the major public health fundamentals (long duration illness gets 100%), company benefit (provided mostly by non-profits) to complete and for intermediate stuff like orthondontics, and I think some additional private insurance for what's left uncovered.
So I think they may be exaggerating in thinking it's either one or the other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France
rhymeswithduck@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1d
Private insurance employs 2x the number of people covered by the insurance?? Wow, wtf. No wonder it's expensive. Your premiums are basically paying someone's entire salary.
blueduck@piefed.social · 2 pts · 22h
The private health insurance business employs at least a half a million people, covers about 250 million Americans
500K employees vs 250M insured
queeradjacent@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 1d
I'm curious as well. It just states a fact (well, it would abolish a lot of private insurance but not all, headlines aren't always perfect), why is the assumption in the comments that it is somehow in favor of private insurance?
cloudshouter@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 21h
All the big media companies seem to be owned by republican money men. Not having a president for something doesn’t mean anything. It’s one of the lamest arguments for protecting the people that are sitting on lazy money/power.
Saapas@piefed.zip · 5 pts · 1d
I mean is there a precedent?
Rothe@piefed.social · 4 pts · 1d
Not in the US, but elsewhere yes.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
Funny how the Supreme Court used precedents from other countries, some from before the US even existed, to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Saapas@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 1d
Well it does specify "American history" meaning the US here.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 18h
If the government plan is better and cheaper the private insurance is doing many things very badly.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 4 pts · 1d
I have yet to see a good take come from anyone with a blue checkmark...
bcgm3@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
Then maybe some kind of job placement program should be made available for all the folks who would stand to lose their private insurance jobs, and that's written into the transition plan. I'm sure the government is going to need help running Medicare for All.
matlag@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 1d
All the folks who were paid to reject claims could be transferred to examine puplic subsidies applications by oligarchs corps. Jut putting, that on the table...
HubertManne@piefed.social · 1 pts · 1d
this. the work requirements are bs. they need to guarantee a job if doing that and it needs to pay enough to meet modest costs.
moustachio@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
On one hand, sure. But at the same time those people should really already get another fucking job and not help that shithole industry. Their paycheck comes from stealing other people’s paychecks to enrich the parasitic investor class.
I had a job for a “Medicare advantage” company for a little bit, and it’s the only job I quit without another one lined up. They were fucking scum.
Fuck that industry, the boards of directors would all be hanged if we lived in a just society.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 2 pts · 1d
what i was saying is if the gov requires people to work to get benefits then they should be providing guaranteed work that pays fairly.
zarkanian@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 21h
It would end Obamacare! Why do you hate Obama?!?
crystalmerchant@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
So, everyone's heard of Campaigns Inc., right?
Drusas@fedia.io · 5 pts · 1d
No.
Avicenna@programming.dev · 2 pts · 5h
Someone needs to think of the shareholders who would need to sell their mega yachts because of this madness.
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 26m
Also, even with countries that have a public option private insurance is usually still allowed. There are zero good arguments against it and a lot of superfluous nonsense meant to muddy the waters.
VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
This is like 7 or 8 years old now but more importantly, it's just a statement of fact, not an argument
Wtf is wrong with you guys where you just assume every statement is some kind of personal dig?
The article asks Economists about the predicted impact of switching to universal healthcare (to every day people) beyond the treatment they get.
For example, what happens to all of the people who work for these private insurance companies? What about retirement plans? Lots of people have retirement plans based on stocks. How much of their retirement stock money is tied up in private insurance companies?
It's not an argument for, or against, anything. Just literally someone asking an Economist, lets pretend we made this change tomorrow, what would the impact be?
And the answer is, "we don't know because nothing like this has ever happened in the United States before"
Typically Economists can look at past events to predict what an upcoming event would look like. But there's literally nothing close to this that's ever taken place so while they can all guess it's literally just that, a guess. There's nothing in the past to compare it to
And this question gets more complicated when we ask what exactly the change would be. Should it be a slow, incremental change, or a sweeping set of legislation that makes massive changes seemingly overnight? Is the government ready to provide this coverage or would it find itself overwhelmed and unable to provide service fast enough and so needs time to build internal infrastructure?
It's just information.
The person who commented is a fucking idiot who clearly didn't read the article and you're all idiots for going along with her shit before reading the article yourselves too
5318008@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 1d
Let's assume that everything you just said about the article is true, without any flaws. Why would that make her response idiotic?
If we mentioned the impact that cutting defense spending would have on Raytheon, Lockheed, and Boeing... "Oh no, not my military industrial complex..."
If we mentioned the impact that a new public housing program would have on the housing market... "Oh no, not the sector of the financial market profiting from the endlessly increasing price of a basic human need..."
I understand that these things would have major financial impacts. I also understand the value of NYT writing an article about the nuances of where it would have upsides and downsides. But also, the original commenter isn't criticizing that analysis. She's criticizing the business model of private insurance. Your response just leads me to ask,
VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 22h
It makes her response idiotic because it has nothing to do with the article
The article isn't pro, or anti, anything. It's 8 years old, probably around the time of the presidential election, and so, in context, it was a question of, "what if Biden wins and actually does get rid of privatized health care, what would that look like to everyday people and the economy?"
5318008@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 18h
It's not a rebuttal of the article, no... but it IS definitely in the same topic as the article.
Twitter is a microblogging platform... not a debate platform. If you assume that she is trying to provide a counterargument in 140 characters or less, then yes, it would seem idiotic.
Are we making that assumption?
EDIT: Just to acknowledge that I read your response, and I don't wish to respond to it.
VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 6h
It's not on the same topic of the article as all
The article is about the potential impact on the economy, not if private health care is good or bad
Cherries@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
There is no need to be coy, any well educated adult knows factual statements can be used for misleading purposes. Having an article title focused on the unprecedented nature of universal healthcare is a deliberate choice designed to negatively polarize the reader against it.
By 2019, we've known that universal healthcare would save hundreds of billions of dollars. As for the problems highlighted in the article, those are also easily addressed and have been many times by anyone seriously considering the topic. The new system that takes the place of private, for profit system will still need secretaries and logistical technicians. The main group that would be discarded is the useless middlemen who simply profit from the system. Retirement plans? A major concern of the elderly retirees is healthcare, which would be much cheaper with a universal plan. The money saved on healthcare can be used in other areas.
The article is focused mostly on the negative side effects the rich and wealthy beneficiaries would experience and tries to spread those fears to the common working person through needless fear mongering and a hyperfixation on the opinions of the wealthy. Of course the parasites would have negative opinions about being removed. This article is absolutely an argument against universal healthcare and it is absurd of you to claim otherwise. The US is the wealthiest country in the history of mankind and it is the only modern OECD nation without single payer healthcare.
ayyy@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 1d
Yes, there are simply no examples of countries with universal healthcare. It simply hasn’t been done.
You see how you’re using an intentionally obtuse and misleading premise now?
VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 22h
I'm just telling you what the article said. You still didn't try to look it up and read it through, and yet you responded anyway.
Incredible
had you looked it up you would have seen that they did indeed talk about other countries and tried to imagine how this all might play out depending on which model the US adapts or if we take some kind of hybrid approach
But I mean, who needs to listen to an expert in the field of economics when you can just pretend like you already know everything? Stay stupid
Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1d
Having past events to look at doesn’t inherently make analysis of a sufficiently complex issue any more certain, it’s just another data point. The title was specifically used to draw an emotional response and it achieved that goal by at least one person. Concluding the argument with ‘there’s no precedent so we can’t say’ is lazy at best but the reality is the title was chosen for the exact reason you blame the audience for delivering on. Tons of information can be broken down and analyzed in a way that even aspects of it would have comparable historical events. I doubt the economists that did the research would devolve their efforts into ‘eh, no clue, never happened before, we’re really only able to have ideas about things that have historical patterns which is really inconvenient’.
What the commenter was doing is expressing frustration over a failed system the article is covering. Calling someone stupid for expressing frustrations in an online comment over a failed system the article is about seems detached from reality or overly emotional and self centered. Stop jerking yourself off sometimes and recognize people will respond to things with emotions at times, especially on something with the barrier of entry being ‘can access the internet’.
VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22h
Which is why you don't react to headlines
You hunt down the article, read it, understand the context, and then comment
You are stupid if you react to headlines and doubly so if you know headlines are designed to drawn an emotional response but still fall for it
Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 21h
Since you’re going to continue attacking random strangers based on almost no information about them, you come across as a miserable judgmental person. Not everyone cares to do a research project before making a comment on the internet and no amount of people with shit attitudes and a superiority complex is going to change that.
VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 6h
The amount of you that are proud to admit that you don't do research is astonishing.
You think it's a good thing that you don't read articles, look up statistics to fact check what you heard, etc... you think those of us that do are lame
You're proud to be ill-informed and stupid as fuck. Reacting to rage-bait headlines and believing what celebrities tell you
I am better than you
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
They can still look at past events to predict the upcoming event; we have scores of examples and generations of data for other nations all over the world. It's been done, many times. It's not magic, there's absolutely no mystery.
They have to get three jobs like everybody else. This is happening constantly everywhere, why is that a concern now? What makes this the line? Get another job, prole, same as it ever was.
Invest in something else, done and done. Those who invested too much in health insurance companies will lose a lot of money. Standard operating procedure for everyone with everything in USA. No matter what, there will be winners and losers, someone always makes bank while others go broke.
Idiocy... you don't say?
VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 22h
Oh cool, so where did you get your degree in economics from?
You act like this is something I said when in reality it's what the economists in the article said.
Considering you didn't understand that I am leaning towards the idea that you're an idiot.
wpb@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 20h
This show an astonishing lack of media literacy.
VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 6h
No, it's not. I actually read the article so I know what's it's actually about
ReluctantZen@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 3h
Maybe it's my English, but I don't read this as NYT defending the current US medical system
VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2h
It's not. The people in this sub didn't read the article, they're just reacting to the headline
It's a 7 year old news article about the potential economic impacts of proposed sweeping reforms to health care in the United States.
It's literally just an article for economists and investors about potential changes to the market
The quote isn't even the focus of the article, it's just one guy pointing out that there's really nothing to base our predictions on because nothing like these proposed changes has happened before. Health Care is a trillion dollar industry that employs over half a million people nation wide and these companies stocks are popular among retirement accounts; what happens if we just wipe all of that out? Is it better to do it quickly? Slowly?
Nobody is saying single-payer health care is bad, in fact the article even points out the positives, it's questioning what happens to peoples retirements funds and jobs and what impact would that have on the market as a whole and the economy in both the long and short term
ReluctantZen@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 1h
I mean, so am I.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 8m
Retirement accounts are a real issue, but could be solved by having the top wealthiest shareholders pay out to the poorest shareholders until retirements are guaranteed. This could also be combined with Social Security reform that requires wealthy people to contribute more and extract less from the system.
Presumably many of the actual healthcare workers and some of the admin workers would still be needed in a nationalized system. The insurance agents and related admin can all get other jobs. No one dreams of being an insurance agent as a kid, these people would be free to pursue more meaningful and useful work.
None of these are insurmountable problems for a government that actually serves the people instead of money. This article is just prevarication to cover our current governments inaction.
Polisheocket@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 18h
Ive never had insurance that bad. It’s not normal. But id rather healthcare for all. Just pointing out most insurance is that bad
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 18h
Health insurance in this country is absolutely fucking stupid... I went with the HDHP this year after trying the 'premium' option from my workplace last year, and holy fuck, the HDHP actually costs LESS than paying for the higher tier plans. It's fucking awful that I have to pay 10k before my shit is covered, but I still spend less overall on this plan.
NikolaTeslasPigeon@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 23h
There's no precedent for it in US history. There are American countries with universal healthcare. There are countries throughout the world who have similar successful healthcare systems.
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · -5 pts · 22h
American countries? Go fuck yourself, lol.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 20h
You do know that USA is on the continent of America right?
It's not named "of America" for no reason
wpb@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 20h
What an aggressive reaction to learning that America is a continent.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 20h
Canada and Mexico are countries in America with universal healthcare
Newhere@lemmy.ml · -3 pts · 1d
Yearly private travel and health insurance 80 eur. Suck it up,Americans 🤣🤣🤣
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1d
I think you’ve misunderstood.
Newhere@lemmy.ml · -3 pts · 1d
Oh, on top of that I have national health care which cost me nothing. At dentist, depending of what job need to be done,but it can be between 15 eu to 100 per teeth.
Hermit_Lailoken@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Good for you, you don't have to be a dick about it though.