Other places to discuss US News and Politics that don’t endorse a political science charlatan’s attempt to shift the overton window to the right:
Good luck getting it past all the industry
briberylobbying.This is what I hate about this country it is crony capitalism from the top down
I would be shocked. Absolutely shocked… If the savings weren’t much, much more.
Health insurance companies are leeches.
Anyone who disagrees has never tried to pay for healthcare. Even if you have “good insurance” there’s always something stupid going on.
Doctors have no idea how they get paid, and they pay another company to work with insurance companies. That other company is impossible to contact, so if there’s any issue the insurance company and the payment company blame each other. “Oh the insurance company rejected it incorrectly” or “the payment company coded it wrong.”
It’s far worse than that. I work in healthcare and literally just talked with a patient who was charged more at a walk-in clinic with insurance than they would have paid without.
Their visit would have cost them $250 without, they were billed $300 and insurance paid for another $150 on top of that. And it’s not like they pay nothing to have insurance in the first place.
The system is fraudulent from the ground up.
Yea, I have 128k sitting above my head for almost a year now as the hospital and insurance talk. This was a surgery that was pre-authorized. They paid for everything else including the nursing facility I was in. The last part in the OR bill.
Fuck em, don’t pay that shit
I call the insurance and hospital every 2 months now. Like you guys are still working on this right?
So, which party supports it?
Bernie Sanders.
As democrats are so fond of gloating whenever someone brings up their party’s abysmal actions during 2016, Sanders is not a member of their party.
He caucuses with the Democrats. He’s been the staunchest supporter of Biden and Harris. We don’t need to re-litigate 2016 despite the heinous shit they pulled. He is one of the only senate Democrats that supports universal healthcare. Congress has maybe 10-20.
He’s one of the only Senators who supports doing the right thing.
Of course he’s not a member of a party.
Which is what I asked. Which party supports m4a?
And suddenly, when it’s convenient for Democrats, Bernie is one of them and no one should relitigate 2016.
But when centrists want to browbeat progressives and blame them for Trump’s presidency, relitigating 2016 is perfectly fine.
Can’t let our health care get in the way of corporate profits.
*$5.1 Trillion will not go to big businesses and corporations
Which is why they’ll fight to the death to not allow us to have a good thing.
Government for the people who own corporations, by the the people owned by the corporations. That’s the quote, right?
But how am I supposed to keep my employees if they aren’t reliant on me for access to healthcare? What am I supposed to do, pay them more? Treat them like human beings?!
I literally work with at least 3 people that are ONLY working at my job for the healthcare… One dude is 68 and gets covered in aluminum dust all day just for the fucking healthcare.
You’re goddamn right people would not be working those absolute shit jobs if it weren’t for healthcare being tied to work.
Bootlickers: “WeLl ThEn HoW aRe ThOsE bUsInEsSeS sUpPoSeD tO sUrViVe AfTeR!?”
68?
Am I missing something? Shouldn’t he already be eligible for Medicare?
More than likely. I’m just going by what he told me when I asked why he wasn’t retired or planning on it. He was given a hefty inheritance so it’s not like he needs to work.
Sounds to me like the people who turn down extra pay because it will put them in a higher tax bracket and they think they’ll make less after taxes.
Why don’t you read the article? The proposed system still has employer payments, but promises reduction of these payments which should give a good boost for businesses.
The US government spends the most per capita for healthcare and that money is used to cover only a minority of citizens.
People are then paying extra for private insurance over that.
Having a governmental monopoly for healthcare is the best because the government can decide how much medications and services cost, the providers don’t have a choice since they only have one client and that client’s goal isn’t to make profit or to make sure others are making profit, its goal is to pay as little as possible.
Norway has universal healthcare for everyone. Going to the ER is free. Ambulance is free. Surgery is free. Checkups and tests are heavily subsidised where we only pay a small fee (like $20). If you spend more than x-amount on fees annually, you get the fees waived for the remainder of the year.
We have health insurances, but that will only allow you to go to private clinics with less wait times. These insurances are normally paid by employers with highly skilled workers. It’s not considered to be a necessity.
The Norwegian healthcare isn’t cheap, and we pay around 35-40% income tax, and 25% VAT, but our income doesn’t dictate what type of services we’re allowed to get. Poverty is low, and crime rates are low.
Socialism works.
We do not really pay 35-40% income tax in practice, it’s a progressive tax system
For example, I pay about 25% in tax on my income, which is roughly the median salary
Reading “ambulance is free” is still crazy for my European mind. ===> “Of course it is… If the driver asks you for money, we’d put them in jail for years.”
It’s crazy to my American mind too.
A minority? Howso? Does that mean most people are uninsured? Or just that the majority of insurance payments go to less than 50% of people? Or…?
Just hadn’t heard that one before, so curious about details.
Public healthcare insurance covers about a third of the population, the rest are either uninsured or covered by private insurance.
Medicare only exists to cover the most expensive patients who require the most care, so that we can support a massive private insurance industry, and to ensure that industry remains profitable.
Anyone who denies that this system exists to explicitly elevate one class of people over another whom are exploited is living in a fantasy world
Is there a study that shows how much potential profit the medical industrial complex may not realize if we made the switch? (Of course in reality, they’d still find a way to get most of “their piece”).
Because that’s the thing holding it up. Not data-based proof points, or public opinion that universal healthcare would work, we have that and have had that.
I’m pretty sure most corporations are holding this up, actually. They want us to be beholden to them for healthcare so it’s harder to quit. And they want us to not have easy access to Healthcare so we can’t sue them in class actions for shitty products. I am convinced the class action piece would represent trillions in losses for corporations here.
What about the shareholders Bob? Who’s looking out for them?
Could you imagine? All those sick people who would stop working til they die? Harumph.
Oh, but what about those poor middlemen that do so much working keeping prices inflated? What will they do for a living?
Have heard folks unironically make this argument. “The insurance industry! Massive unemployment! My 401k is invested in them! I’ll be ruined!”.
Won’t someone think of the shareholders!
Medicare is a giant subsidy to private insurance companies because it removes the disabled and elderly from their rolls. And it’s also created a back-end for coding claims that the industry adopts. And even with the more expensive patients, and the burden of designing the whole system, Medicare constantly delivers more care per dollar than the private guys.
Problem being, I’m sure politicians of all stripes have invested heavily in private insurance companies. And those so called administrative fees make it all the more lucrative.
The header is misleading. Read the article and the details of that research. To make it work they propose to add 3.75% sales tax on everything except necessities, wealth tax for >$1mil net worth, tax capital gains as ordinary income, and keep existing Medicare paycheck tax same and employers contributions but slightly smaller.
It might be fairer system, and it will be more humane system for lower middle income folks who cannot afford health insurance and don’t qualify for Medicaid.
But it’s a lot of new taxes. They say that for top 20% earners the net healthcare cost will be higher. And all the lobbying from insurance business… i just don’t see this could pass.
We either:
-
pay $3,240,000,000,000 to the middle men/corpos/yacht funds every year
-
pay $2,930,000,000,000 to the government to provide actual service without bullshit denials of service
The cost is overall less, but shifted to taxes, which is how basically every other country that has their shit together does it. The choice is pretty obvious for anybody even slightly paying attention.
-
Health care is already a lot of “tax”. I am paying $2200 a month for my family.
Common Dreams Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Name: Common Dreams Bias: Left
Factual Reporting: High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/common-dreams/Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.Footer
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.Dave M. Van Zandt has no academic media literacy qualifications. He’s not a social scientist. He should not be running a site that is being used to censor news feeds.
He admits that his system for judging ‘bias’ is pseudoscience, but at the same time claims that MBFC’s purpose is to debunk pseudoscience. He appears to have no idea what science is. His methods for rating credibility are not public, repeatable, or by his own admission falsifiable.
He is actively harming media diversity and LW should be ashamed for taking this charlatan seriously.
Admitting that measuring bias is inherently subjective does not make it pseudoscience, and the methodologies used to measure each publications bias are listed on each page. This is not tantamount to “pseudoscience.”
It’s never presented as more than an opinion, and you’re free to disagree with it.
methodologies used to measure each publications bias are listed on each page.
What do you think methodology means in the context of science?
MBFC never claims to be “science”. In fact, your screenshot shows where it specifically claims that it is not.
