And NYT said Hitler was a reformed man after a brief stint in prison.
"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.
Submitted 2 weeks ago by VetOfTheSeas@discuss.online to workreform@lemmy.world
https://discuss.online/pictrs/image/01388c24-f281-4cda-ba70-b31b442a4283.png
Comments
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
eah@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
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.
Rooster326@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
And if you deny too many claims. You get Mangione’d
eah@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
Approve too many, you get fired.
HubertManne@piefed.social 2 weeks 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.
tamal3@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Fuck the NYT. I unsubscribed the moment they started shit talking Bernie back in the day.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
As long as they keep publishing david brooks columns, they’re a mouthpiece for fascism
oce@jlai.lu 2 weeks ago
What is the context of this quote? NYT’s journalist editorial, someone invited to write, someone quoted?
blueduck@piefed.social 2 weeks 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
oce@jlai.lu 2 weeks ago
Thank you for providing the link and quotes!
rhymeswithduck@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks 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.
queeradjacent@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks 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?
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
If the government plan is better and cheaper the porivate insurance is doing many things very badly.
cloudshouter@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
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 2 weeks ago
I mean is there a precedent?
Rothe@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Not in the US, but elsewhere yes.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago
Well it does specify “American history” meaning the US here.
OwOarchist@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
I have yet to see a good take come from anyone with a blue checkmark…
AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
If there were two candidates I could vote for, one of them saying they would establish universal healthcare but allow private insurance to continue; and one who would establish universal healthcare and promise to abolish private insurance - I would emphatically vote for the latter.
ReluctantZen@feddit.nl 2 weeks ago
Maybe it’s my English, but I don’t read this as NYT defending the current US medical system
VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
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
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
it’s not even true, it’s a false premise – single payer medicare for all wouldn’t ban anything private, in fact medicare itself works alongside private coverage for wealthy individuals and has done so for many decades. it’s nonsense at every level.
Tiger666@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Save the markets they said, it will ruin most people like you they said, they dont want their hegemony over health terminated like some stupid ass CEO shot in the street like a dog as they enter their earnings call while stepping over his body.
ReluctantZen@feddit.nl 2 weeks ago
The people in this sub didn’t read the article, they’re just reacting to the headline
I mean, so am I.
Avicenna@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
Someone needs to think of the shareholders who would need to sell their mega yachts because of this madness.
Uranus_Hz@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
I am 100% in favor of universal health care. But as a realist I also recognize there are millions of people who work in the health insurance industry who would become unemployed. So that is an issue that would need to be addressed as well. Because a massive increase in unemployment depresses wages for everyone.
Avicenna@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
Replacing private insurance with medicare would likely need lot of office work and infrastructure so it could absorb some of it. They might also be allowed to transform into smaller scale companies that outsurce their services to the government for these purposes (though they would likely need to downsize). After working in such a hell hole though, some of them might need some workshops in empathy.
In any case agreed they should look out for folks affected by such a fallout but CEOs and upper management can go lip up Trump’s diarrhea for all I care.
bcgm3@lemmy.world 2 weeks 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.
matlag@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks 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…
HubertManne@piefed.social 2 weeks 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.
moustachio@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
So, everyone’s heard of Campaigns Inc., right?
Drusas@fedia.io 2 weeks ago
No.
spacegoat@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The American precedent is life continuing getting worse for the 99% with no pushback
anarchy79@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
“Quitting predatory business practices would abolish all predatory businesses!”
Oh no. Anyway…
zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
It would end Obamacare! Why do you hate Obama?!?
NikolaTeslasPigeon@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
There’s no precedent for it US history. There are American countries with universal healthcare. There are countries throughout the world who have similar successful healthcare systems.
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
American countries? Go fuck yourself, lol.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
You do know that USA is on the continent of America right?
It’s not named “of America” for no reason
wpb@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
What an aggressive reaction to learning that America is a continent.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Canada and Mexico are countries in America with universal healthcare
NikolaTeslasPigeon@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I knew someone would lose their shit over this.
Polisheocket@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
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 2 weeks ago
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.
ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Most people are missing the subtext on this: they’re saying you’d wipe out an entire industry overnight and literally millions of people would be unemployed overnight. Given the pisspoor state of the welfare system in America this is actually a fairly serious issue that must be accounted for whenever a transition actually occurs. It also means a huge block of potential voters, anyone who works for Cigna, Aetna, Kaiser permanente, bcbs, etc, is going to be far more likely to oppose any such changes. Plus other related industries like medical billing and families that are dependent on these incomes
This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t transition asap of course, it just means there’s a complex set of issues to navigate that honestly are never touched upon by people who propose healthcare reform. That’s how you know they aren’t serious. Either they’re proposing a system that props up these companies (ala Harris) which means the costs of medical care will not appreciably improve (America pays an insane amount of admin costs especially relative to other countries, like 5-7x as much). Or they are mentioning it with no intention to make it happen
formergijoe@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
My insurance does that, plus charges me more than not having insurance until I hit the $13k
Newhere@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Yearly private travel and health insurance 80 eur. Suck it up,Americans 🤣🤣🤣
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
I think you’ve misunderstood.
Newhere@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
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 weeks ago
Good for you, you don’t have to be a dick about it though.
humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago
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 2 weeks ago
Advantage is Part C and it’s largely just a scam.