top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 275 points 6 months ago (5 children)

This would be enough to "radicalize me", but I don't think it's all that radical to be against a system that treats people this way.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    It isn't. It's inhumane the way these companies are behaving. They're a threat to society and this is humans' instinctual response to eliminating threats.

    We are giving thousands of dollars of our money to a company to insure that our life and health will be taken care of, it should NOT be up to these companies what methods of remedies that a person needs to be kept alive and healthy are "deemed necessary"

    Furthermore; these companies CEO should NEVER be paid more than a average median citizen... full stop. There's no reason an insurance company employee owns a yacht.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 171 points 6 months ago (23 children)

    I’ll never understand how people were OK with putting middlemen with an interest in denying care between them and lifesaving treatment.

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 117 points 6 months ago (12 children)

    because apparently, the alternative is communism, and it will have death panels that will decide if you get to live in order to save costs...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    Insurance companies are deathpanels though...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I believe that was their point...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    Well maybe they are private enterprise death panels, but they trust them more than theoretical government death panels because the private sector is more efficient than government at cutting costs, such as, um, actually paying for needed care and oh shit they did not think that through.

    edit: I meant to reply that to the comment above, but oh well. It's here now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    that was my point.

    they prefer real material death panels, than the alternative, because it might have theoretical death panels. that no country with public healthcare has.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    The danger of commenting first thing after waking up!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    same, haven't got my coffee yet, how do you take yours?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Insurance is worse than communism in this case.

    Tax paid universal healthcare and healthcare insurance both work on the idea of socializing the cost.

    The difference is that insurance companies also need to make a profit too feed the owners. Since they don't actually produce anything that can make a profit, the only place they can grab the "profit" is by denying cover.

    American healthcare insurance is exactly the same picture that is shown when people try to explain why communism doesn't work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Tax paid universal healthcare and healthcare insurance both work on the idea of socializing the cost.

    I think if we used their language it might help: we should outsource healthcare costs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 6 months ago* (6 children)

    The Acquired podcast went over this history very briefly in their Epic episode and it's so crazy how close we were to having universal healthcare.

    Tl;dl:

    • during WW2, wage controls were in place due to a large demand of workers but very few people available due to being in the war
    • unions and companies alike were looking for ways to make their positions and companies more attractive.
    • government permitted benefits to augment salaries. Some companies started offering health insurance.
    • back then going to the doctor was NOT the bankrupt causing thing that is today and was considered a fringe benefit
    • larger companies were able to offer better incentives due to healthcare benefits
    • add a few years of corruption and "market forces" and you have the system we have now

    So blame wage controls during WW2.

    Oh and the Brits were facing similar forces when they were starting to stand up their healthcare system but decided instead to hire people to build a robust system so everyone didn't have to pay anything at the point of sale.

    Yeah, it really was that simple.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    Universal healthcare is one of those things that's not only tricky to set up but also to keep going. Here in the UK, yep the NHS is amazing. But it's also terribly underfunded - despite taking over 10% of GDP (IIRC) we still have long waiting lists, and healthcare staff are overworked and underpaid. Greedy vermin are constantly looking for opportunities to privatise it, the only reason this hasn't already happened is that it would be hugely unpopular. I'm pretty sure almost everyone in the country would prefer more taxes be spent on the NHS and maybe a bit less on, say, fossil fuel subsidies - but here we are. Still, it's one of the few things our country can actually be proud of.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago

    the only reason long waiting lists don't exist in the us is because some people just are not getting the things they need done at all. Even people with insurance you often can't find a specialist who takes it and the insurance denies things like in the article. The wait is very long when its impossible to get the treatment at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 115 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Mangione did nothing wrong.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 107 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    Life is not medically necessary

    In fact its a massive risk factor.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (8 children)

    I work in EMS. My advice to students and brand new EMTs is always the same: don't freak out when your patient is in cardiac arrest. Those are the easy calls. I have to keep people alive and if someone is crashing in front of me I have to figure out why and what I can try to do to stop it so they don't die. The ones that are already in cardiac arrest aren't getting any more dead, and the only outcomes are that we improve on that or we don't. We can't make them worse. Dead is the most stable condition.

    Edit: That said, one of my favorite things about working in EMS is that I don't have to care about "medically necessary" or insurance companies. If I think my patient needs a treatment and it's in my protocol to give it, I give it. I don't have to ask for an insurance company's approval or get a payment method from my patients, I just get to help people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah, but then your patients often get a 3000 dollar "ambulance" bill bcz ambulance companies are still privately run.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Some places have volunteer-only EMT services, and still charge thousands of dollars for an ambulance ride...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Forgive the long comment, and this is very US centered and doesn't apply to every area in the US. EMS systems vary broadly between states and even municipalities within states...

    To put some of that in perspective:

    • A new ambulance costs about $250-$400k depending on the type.
    • The heart monitors we use are somewhere in the area of $10k-$25k a piece. That's ONE piece of the equipment that we use, and they need maintenance and replacement every so often.
    • There's all the other equipment, and restock of medical items. Even if something doesn't get used it has to be on the truck and has to be replaced when it's outdated.
    • Fuel is expensive. The last agency I worked for spent about $400k - $500k a year just on fuel.
    • There's insurance - auto insurance, liability insurance, workman's comp, etc.
    • Keeping an EMS certification active requires ongoing continuing education credits. We take classes constantly to stay current and to be able to renew our cert, which in some states costs money just to renew. I've spent hundreds just to be able to work, both in con ed classes and certs. Some agencies will help pay for this cost, and many provide free con ed classes for their providers. This costs money.
    • There's building costs, rent, electric, etc.
    • Ongoing vehicle maintenance (ambulances break a LOT)
    • administrative costs, and so many more I haven't listed

    And that's all before you get into paying anyone for their work. You aren't paying thousands of dollars for YOUR ambulance ride. You're paying for the fact that the ambulance existed to respond to your emergency in the first place. Many agencies don't get taxpayer money, and if they do, it's minimal. My last agency had townships paying them $2k a year to provide 24-7 ambulance service with paid providers. That doesn't even cover fuel, let alone anything else.

    Is it absolutely bullshit that people should have to be bankrupted to pay for an ambulance bill? 100% No one should have to worry about money when they're having an emergency.

    If you don't like it, advocate for a municipal tax. If every household paid something like $75-$100 a year you could have the best EMS service with well trained, well paid providers using the best, most up to date equipment available and you would never have to worry about an ambulance bill. The places that implement those taxes generally either don't bill at all or bill insurance and only take what insurance pays them, there's no balance billing of the patient.

    But no one wants extra taxes, even if it could save them thousands of dollars, and for some reason people come out and support funding for the fire departments and the police departments and no one wants to advocate for support and funding for EMS, so instead you get this mess where EMS is somehow expected to hold itself together and be a profitable enough business to self sustain. You end up with a system where providers are underpaid, have to work 70+ hour weeks to survive (and thus are incredibly burnt out and exhausted - you really want a provider who has worked 70 hours in 5 days on 10 hours of total sleep making life or death decisions?), the good providers head to places where they can get better pay, the equipment and ambulances are old and being held together by sheer will of the providers, and patients still have insane bills.

    Patients should not fund EMS. Government should fund EMS. It's a service, not a business, but under the current system in most places, it has to be a business if you want to be able to call 911 and have someone there to respond.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    You pretty much addressed my responses to the first half of your comment in the second half.

    That all sounds like reasons why the city/county/municipality/state should pay for EMS services.

    People are already paying taxes, so it's not unreasonable for them to expect the governments that they're funding to provide the critical services that everyone needs. It's in everyone's interest to have a smoothly-operating EMS service that doesn't need to be run likely a business.

    Tax money already pays for police, and their budgets are already bloated as is. Why the hell can't tax money be used to pay for all those costs of maintaining an EMS service? No one should be landed with a multi-thousand dollar bill for having a medical emergency.

    Healthcare in general should run this way, but especially emergency medical services. It's absurd that it isn't. But too many americans are afraid of the big scary "socialism," so they continue to let billionaire oligarchs fuck them over like this. It's insane.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 83 points 6 months ago (26 children)

    What's ironic is that the big opposition from the GOP to ObamaCare was this ludicrous idea of "Death Panels" weighing human life against budgets.

    And yet, when the panels are a dictatorial insurance algorithm, where is that classic 2009-2010 outrage?

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 6 months ago (23 children)

    You probably already know but, those arguments aren't why the GOP were outraged. It's what they thought would be most likely to get the public outraged.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (22 children)

    "the public" seems dumb as fuck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (17 children)

    Yes, you can blame the GOP for defunding education as well.

    (I have exactly zero love for the Zionazi-owned Dems either but I'm not aware of them ever defunding education)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (16 children)

    Or discriminating against gays, or cutting food stamps, or invading Greenland, or storing nuclear secrets in bathrooms, or...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (15 children)

    I do recall them being unabashedly genocidal in Palestine though, so I'm not exactly in a rush to give them credit for less-than-the-bare-minimum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (14 children)

    That's table stakes in the US unfortunately. There's no option for "no genocide", you need a complete reform of the electoral system (basically anything newer than 18th century will do) and then some new political parties. But since that is wishful thinking at the moment, the lesser of two evils will do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (13 children)

    There’s no option for “no genocide”

    Weird, I was able to find one.

    the lesser of two evils will do.

    "genocide is the lesser of two evils" is exactly where this mentality has gotten you. You may be compromised enough to sign your name off on that. I am not and never will be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (12 children)

    Weird, I was able to find one.

    Last time I looked, the genocide actually has expanded to Lebanon, with threats to directly implement it in Iran. Congrats, I guess?

    where this mentality has gotten you.

    Where?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (11 children)

    I didn't vote for Trump. (Unless you want to do the "you did by not voting for Kamala", in which case I also voted for Holocaust Harris by not voting for Trump, so stop complaining.)

    So, unlike when I voted for Genocide Joe after being duped into the "lesser evil" argument in 2016, the blood of this administration is not on my hands except insofar as I benefit from imperialism even if I try not to. I did not willingly sign my name off as an endorsement of this genocidal administration, unlike the previous genocidal administration.

    I will never make the mistake of voting Democrat ever again (and was never going to vote Republican to begin with). Maybe if they send Biden, Kamala, Trump, and Kushner all to the Hague and apply economic and military pressure to force the collapse of the illegal occupation of Palestine, you can come back and ask me again. I won't be holding my breath for that.

    Where?

    Supporting genocide under the patently ridiculous veil of "at least it's kinder genocide than the other guy"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (10 children)

    It's 100% on your hands, voting third party makes you complicit in everything the president does, because you knew what the outcome would be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (9 children)

    I really don't care what your Blue MAGA "a kinder genocide" perspective on my refusal to endorse your preferred genocidaire is.

    You want to win. You accuse the left of causing your candidate to lose. You know what that's called? Leverage. Time to start listening to our demands if you want to stop losing, because as you can see, we currently do not care whether you or the other genocidaires win. That's the "democracy" you're all ostensibly so obsessed with protecting, right? Run electable candidates on an electable platform or you deserve to lose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (8 children)

    I want to win? How do I win? What "my" candidate?

    I already have universal Healthcare, free childcare, my engineering degree costed about 4k in fees and my kids will have to pay even less. I have public transport, bike lanes, a high speed train network and even a monorail. A whole year of paid maternity leave, unlimited sick days, 30 days of PTO a year on top of 11 public holidays, workers unions, rent protections...

    I sure letting Republicans win out of spite will get you all those things in the next 3 years. That, or a few trillions more of debt to genocide not only Gaza, but now also Iran and Lebanon. Keep voting third party, maybe in 2029 president Vance will bomb Jordan, or Denmark...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (7 children)

    So

    what you're saying is you have no actual stakes in the game and are preaching shit to someone who does

    got it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (6 children)

    Yeah. Having stakes makes people irrational, they do the dumbest things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (5 children)

    lmao what are you even saying

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    ...Sure? Is that an impotent foreign insult?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    That no longer matters as they are not the ones in charge anymore...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 72 points 6 months ago* (5 children)

    They kill us through fraud And theft, and are surprised that we celebrated Luigi's deeds. The truth is they will only start to care when more of them start to drop. How many more millions need to die because of this BS before we're ready to bring justice down on their heads as a collective class?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Everyone needs to read Billionaire's Island.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    None your society is just as complacent as the greedy sociopathic class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago*

    I think you mean complicit. "Complacent" doesn't make very much sense in that context.

    It's also a hollow edgy take, the likes of which would be expected from a shut-in teenager who doesn't actually interact with people. Most Americans are exploited to the point of exhaustion, which is a little more complicated than just "they're complicit", and some Americans are putting in quite a lot of effort to improve the shithole country we're from.

    Have you ever had a warehouse job, or anywhere else where you can actually speak with the exploited masses? If so, did you speak to them? Have you ever spend time in real-world organizing spaces? Not talking about just going to a protest, I mean getting involved with the people in your community who you're accusing of being complicit. (PSL doesn't count.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 66 points 6 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    well...

    it did actually fix some things about the last company, last time...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 171 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 57 points 6 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I'm so fascinated by the image of him having 8 downvotes while the comment calling for him by name only has 1 🤔

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    Maybe people think he is depicting Jesus here? I mean the heart he is pointing at with his left hand is often seen in iconic portraits of Jesus (I am not sure if it also appears in portraits of saints, but that's not entirely relevant if the point would be whether people THOUGHT that or not)?

    Oh who are we kidding, people probably just assume that the animation was generated by AI and so hate it for that reason:-P.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 57 points 6 months ago
    [–] 56 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    The family should get back every penny they've paid to that insurance company.

    What the fuck are they paying them for?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 11 points 6 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    It's also designed to keep people dependent on their employers. You land a salaries position at a company that provides one of the few decent healthcare plans in the US, and suddenly you'll put up with a lot of shit to keep that job...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    There hasn't been a tax penalty in the US for not having insurance for years now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 6 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    Until you need surgery and it's 400k. For clarity insurance is a scam. Not going without it in today's climate is taking a massive risk, though

    Total scam. Shouldn't exist. I hate it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago

    American style health insurance is a scam. I pay around 600 euros a month in Germany, for me and two kids, and there's no such thing as "copay". Delivering a baby costed us about 8 euros in parking fees. This is a private company offering insurance, there's no single payer in Germany. Other European and Asian countries do have single payer, with similar costs (the contribution is then a tax instead of insurance payment). It's the American "five yachts per CEO" model that causes problems.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    If you could predict everything perfectly then that’s fine. What if instead of a normal delivery, you needed a week in the NICU? Then that $20k quickly becomes $100k.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    It’s cheaper to pay cash than use insurance.

    Yes, for most people, in most years. But the cost of health care tends to be very, very unevenly distributed. A person might see medical bills of less than $1000 per year for 20 years and then get a single $1,000,000 year. So at that point, it's an annualized cost of $50,000 per year, even if most years it's about $1,000. Some estimates are that 10-30% of all medical spending in the US is in the last year of life.

    Many believe that because of this distribution, health insurance should primarily be a catastrophic care model where most people pay a premium that doesn't cover anything for the first few thousand, then covers a percentage of the cost up to the out of pocket maximum of like $15,000 or so for a family, but does cover everything after that. For a typical household, being able to predict annual healthcare expenses for the entire year is very useful.

    And personally, I'm pretty sympathetic to this catastrophic care model as a short term transition to an all payer model that looks like Switzerland's system (private insurance, private providers, mandatory coverage, strict price controls, and subsidies for anyone who can't afford the normal premiums).

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›