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.
"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.
Submitted 9 hours ago by VetOfTheSeas@discuss.online to workreform@lemmy.world
https://discuss.online/pictrs/image/01388c24-f281-4cda-ba70-b31b442a4283.png
Comments
humanspiral@lemmy.ca 33 minutes ago
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 minute ago
Medicare Advantage (Part D)
Advantage is Part C and it’s largely just a scam.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 24 minutes ago
Part D and Medicare Advantage are different things.
Part D is straight Medicare. 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 6 minutes ago
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 10 minutes ago
Part D plans are all privately offered. The government does not offer a Part D plan like it does Part A and B.
BilliamBoberts@lemmy.world 42 minutes ago
A blatant lie as well, plenty of countries with universal healthcare sustain a private health insurance industry.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 minute ago
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.
matlag@sh.itjust.works 25 minutes ago
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!
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 54 minutes ago
Right, there’s no precedent in American history for declaring an entire class of business to be illegal.
en.wikipedia.org/…/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat…
I think guys have maybe heard about this.
www.nytimes.com/1930/01/02/…/prohibition.html
Oh hey look, yeah, you did!
You can not like it but can… can we not, with he 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.
en.wikipedia.org/…/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 34 minutes ago
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.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
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 2 hours ago
Insurance in general should be a public aervice rather than private enterprise and it should not be used for medical care at all.
Noodle07@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Think of all the bombs the US could buy for Israel with all that money !!
HubertManne@piefed.social 28 minutes ago
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.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 2 hours ago
It’s also a flatout lie. It wouldn’t abolish private insurance at all. Nytimes is dogshit journalism.
bold_atlas@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Abolishing slavery destroyed a massive industry too. They would have been against it.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net 25 minutes ago
Pwned
Womble@piefed.world 5 hours ago
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.
KryptonNerd@slrpnk.net 2 hours ago
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 34 minutes ago
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.
im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 3 hours ago
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 hours ago
They’ve made so much money they have too much influence to do away with them.
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.
Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 4 hours ago
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
SalamenceFury@piefed.social 2 hours ago
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 hours ago
Being a complete leech is very profitable.
boaratio@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
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 11 minutes ago
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 26 minutes ago
the denials are the worst part. insult to injury with all the costs.
einlander@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
And still tries to decline your claims.
thesohoriots@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
There was that little bit of time we got some claims through. Something about an Italian plumber.
thefluffiest@feddit.nl 8 hours ago
If you were still wondering if the NYT shills for the oligarchs…
raptore39@lemmy.ca 38 minutes ago
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.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 2 hours ago
Always have
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
But, they’re liberals!
/s
FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 hours ago
Abolition would destroy the cotton industry! There is no precedent in American history!
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
And NYT said Hitler was a reformed man after a brief stint in prison.
Skyrmir@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
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 7 hours ago
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).
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
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.
Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 7 hours ago
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.
Skyrmir@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
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.
bcgm3@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
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.
HubertManne@piefed.social 27 minutes ago
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.
matlag@sh.itjust.works 19 minutes ago
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…
im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 6 hours ago
I hate when things that are obviously inefficient have to be supported just because they exist.
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 2 hours ago
It’s hard to defend the status quo otherwise.
aesthelete@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Oh now we care about precedents for some reason.
architect@thelemmy.club 1 hour ago
They are always bringing up precedent as if it means a damned thing.
Do what’s fucking right.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
AKA the status quo that keep the filthy rich in power, and the poors at the grindstone.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
There is precedent for paying for healthcare with chickens.
grainfed@quokk.au 8 hours ago
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 6 hours ago
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.
Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 9 hours ago
This post is crazy old shes probably paid over 130%
oce@jlai.lu 8 hours ago
What is the context of this quote? NYT’s journalist editorial, someone invited to write, someone quoted?
queeradjacent@sh.itjust.works 3 hours ago
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?
blueduck@piefed.social 2 hours ago
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 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
rhymeswithduck@sh.itjust.works 35 seconds ago
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.
oce@jlai.lu 1 hour ago
Thank you for providing the link and quotes!
Saapas@piefed.zip 7 hours ago
I mean is there a precedent?
Rothe@piefed.social 4 hours ago
Not in the US, but elsewhere yes.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
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 3 hours ago
Well it does specify “American history” meaning the US here.
crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
So, everyone’s heard of Campaigns Inc., right?
Drusas@fedia.io 7 hours ago
No.
OwOarchist@pawb.social 8 hours ago
I have yet to see a good take come from anyone with a blue checkmark…
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 17 minutes ago
oh no, my private insurance, which only gave life saving measure so an astonishing number of people who are alive and thriving today because one of their CEOs got shot in the fucking face, deservedly