|
T-man posted:So... insurance insurance? What a great country we live in. This is called GAP and Accident Insurance
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:03 |
|
|
Zzulu posted:America is so totally hosed and its people dont seem to understand it The people understand it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:The people understand it. Well I think everyone understands poo poo's hosed in some way but maybe 40% know at least approximately why, 20% don't care at all and 40% think the problem is illegal aliens and gay abortions and can be solved by cutting taxes and giving 100% of the remaining budget to the military.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Medicare for All support among Democrats is 85%; among Republicans 52%; and 70% in total. As per Reuters. Overall support is 63%, depending what terms you use; or 56% in another poll; 53% if "Medicare-for-All" or 66% if "public option" or 74% if "Optional Medicare-for-All" or 75% if "Medicaid Buy In." As per KFF.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
everything about american society is so ruinously corrupted and bad that everyone knows something is wrong and needs to be fixed desperately, but since the problem is 'literally everything', none of the solutions make sense or seem likely to anyone without the same exact set of thoughts. i think this is why rather blackpilled thinking like 'guess we should just kill all the old people to lower healthcare costs' or 'people are too polluting, make a one child policy' is somewhat disturbingly common even among leftists. anyway the answer is unironically dissolve the United States, kill the capitalists, seize the means, put the rest of the bougioise into labor camps, and hope that wherever we end up isnt as horrifically cruel and inhumane. we're basically just mass gas showers away from being nazis as it is. we already have done every other crime they did to our own citizens as recently as the 20th century. unironically how could things possibly get any worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Medicare for All support among Democrats is 85%; among Republicans 52%; and 70% in total. As per Reuters. I mean that's cool but I still get the feeling that a bunch of em' think the reason why we can't have Optional Medicaid Buy In for All or whatever is because of all the illegals draining our welfare system with their gay abortions. Also I like how when I googled it I got the result you found, and then like right below it this Slate article reporting on basically the same thing around the same time, see if you can spot any subtle differences: https://slate.com/business/2019/10/medicare-for-all-is-getting-less-popular.html “Medicare for All” Is Getting Less Popular  sure it is
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:anyway the answer is unironically dissolve the United States, kill the capitalists, seize the means, put the rest of the bougioise into labor camps, and hope that wherever we end up isnt as horrifically cruel and inhumane. we're basically just mass gas showers away from being nazis as it is. we already have done every other crime they did to our own citizens as recently as the 20th century. unironically how could things possibly get any worse. gas camps with microtransactions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
Ahahaha:quote:None of this is especially surprising. The phrase “Medicare for All” tended to poll well early on, but its popularity tended to drop once respondents were told it would require them to give up their private insurance. Oh no, perish the thought, what ever would I do if I had to give up my precious special connection to the Aetna Corporation
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
Shame Boy posted:I mean that's cool but I still get the feeling that a bunch of em' think the reason why we can't have Optional Medicaid Buy In for All or whatever is because of all the illegals draining our welfare system with their gay abortions. I mean American voters just don't have any power and are totally stupid. Universal healthcare saw majority support before Obama took office and it was his main plank. Then in order to get ACA to pass the Republican controlled House the Democrats ditched the single payer option totally. Then they still couldn't pass it and forced it through by way of executive order. The people didn't really have much say at all - they elected the guy to do it and mistakenly thought that was sufficient. As a sidenote I don't see why single payer needed to remain tabled if it was going to be an executive order anyway - but I'm cynical and critical enough of the Democrats to believe they never wanted it at all anyway. The ACA, for what it's worth, is quite poo poo for the average American, although the Medicaid expansion was a godsend to those on Medicaid and those who qualify for it (not easy, you gotta be, uh, extremely poor, basically totally reliant on the government dole already). Well that's the powerless part and a little stupidity. Now for more stupidity and powerlessness, Universal Healthcare 2: Electric Bugaboo. 2016 elections roll on in and Clinton is not a proponent of Medicare for All and actually brutally opposes it in fact (Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen). Well she was less certain of it than she was instrumental in ensuring it would never happen so long as she lives (now she pays lip service to it, more on that in a moment) -- goes on in and torpedoes the Sanders campaign, the strongest proponent of single payer from an American presidential candidate probably ever. So no M-for-A on the table in 2016. Now 2020 is in sights. The democrats make sure that Nancy Pelosi, in the Clinton camp and virulently opposed to M-for-A (publicly as well with not even token lip service), becomes Speaker. Now it might've been the case that the Speaker would have instead been Crawley, a strong M-for-A proponent, but, cleverly, enter Ocasio-Cortez who unseats him. Ocasio-Cortez ostensibly supports M-for-A but nonetheless has unseated a contender for Speaker and a strong proponent in Crawley. When M-for-A comes to the fore again, earlier this year, following AOC's election to office, AOC goes along with Clinton-Pelosi with an excuse of not breaking party discipline (well, a little stronger than that, she called Pelosi, of all people, a progressive). So no M-for-A for now either. Sanders will get hosed over in some way or another before the showdown with Trump - everyone else will drop out or get similarly smeared/buried and Biden or Clinton will compete, and lose, against Trump. Not that either of them are M-for-A proponents anyway. If Clinton is forced to pretend to support it for the campaign she will go the Obama route outlined above. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...c8c7_story.html https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/02/pelosi-medicare-for-all-1311167 https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/11/nancy-pelosi-medicare-for-all/ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren-medicare.html https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/469407-hillary-clinton-warrens-medicare-for-all-plan-would-never-get-enacted The people have been demanding universal healthcare for decades. The call was strongest maybe in the Bush years and certainly in 2008 - well it is strongest now but the real run up can be traced to over 11 years ago now. Unfortunately it's hard for the average American to follow the obfuscations and betrayals of their elected leaders, who are all on the same team really (with some exceptions in, e.g., Sanders or Barbara Lee).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
*complains about health insurance costs *drops insurance because it's too much *buys worst insurance they cant use with insane copay cause its mandated (possible cause Obamacare protections gutted) *explodes if someone dare take that insurance
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
people I have spoken with who are scared of m4a a free e usually confusing insurance providers with care providers. They aren't afraid of losing their insurance, they are afraid of losing their doctor
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
bag em and tag em posted:people I have spoken with who are scared of m4a a free e usually confusing insurance providers with care providers. They aren't afraid of losing their insurance, they are afraid of losing their doctor I mean they're not really "confusing" them, because that's how the system works now. If your insurance company changes, you could very well lose your doctor because they're not covered by the new insurance company. It's just people don't really get that if we switch everyone to medicare the doctors can either accept that or not accept anything, and while I'm sure a bunch will be all "lol gently caress you, I'm cash-only now" for spite reasons, the chances of your lovely local GP doing that are prolly pretty slim.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
I haven't followed the debates in the US very closely so out of interest what is the reason that Medicare for all would require banning private insurance?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:as someone said in some places the employer has someone on staff who hassles the insurance company into doing their loving job. Where I work the woman that does that is in the HR office. When your company pays out $30,000 grand a year for a single employee (and their family) for insurance, you need someone to make sure they’re getting their moneys worth. ^^^^i always assumed it wouldn’t but require banning it but if you want to have private insurance and pay a $900 a month premium for an unsustainable business model...go for it buddy. I’ll be over here getting that same product for much less
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Medicare for All support among Democrats is 85%; among Republicans 52%; and 70% in total. As per Reuters. should be 100%
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
bike tory posted:I haven't followed the debates in the US very closely so out of interest what is the reason that Medicare for all would require banning private insurance? In fact, “both bills would prohibit employers and insurance companies from offering insurance that covers the same benefits that would be provided under the Medicare for All program,” Keith said. “In other words, insurers couldn’t offer coverage that would duplicate the benefits and services of Medicare for All.” https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#7 Zzulu posted:should be 100% Fox News shouldn't exist but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
Shame Boy posted:If your insurance company changes, you could very well lose your doctor because they're not covered by the new insurance company. Pointing out that people now, under our current system, have virtually no freedom to choose their care providers and that their insurance providers can take everything they have away at any time with no input from the consumer usually gets past this point with anyone engaging in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
bag em and tag em posted:with anyone engaging in good faith. So, nobody then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
Strange asking this but any capitalism.png book recommendations? Not for me but I need some xmas gifts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:04
|
|
Associate Christ
|
highly recommend the last american
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
bag em and tag em posted:Pointing out that people now, under our current system, have virtually no freedom to choose their care providers and that their insurance providers can take everything they have away at any time with no input from the consumer usually gets past this point with anyone engaging in good faith. Okay but I like my assigned doctor right now, you expect me to meet a new person?? What if they're An Ethnic!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
bike tory posted:I haven't followed the debates in the US very closely so out of interest what is the reason that Medicare for all would require banning private insurance? gotta have something to scare people with
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
bike tory posted:I haven't followed the debates in the US very closely so out of interest what is the reason that Medicare for all would require banning private insurance? If you don't ban private insurance, the private insurers will siphon off the cheapest, healthiest people with "cheap" deals and saddle the public system with the more expensive people to treat. Then, people will point to it as being a huge waste of money and we should just get rid of it. It's like privatizing Social Security, if you even allow an inch they will take a mile and use it to dismantle the program.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:In fact, “both bills would prohibit employers and insurance companies from offering insurance that covers the same benefits that would be provided under the Medicare for All program,” Keith said. “In other words, insurers couldn’t offer coverage that would duplicate the benefits and services of Medicare for All.” Ok so not technically banning private health insurance, but mostly. So why? Is it to ensure people actually use it, instead of continuing with their lovely, expensive private insurance that undermines the benefits of a single-payer system?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:I mean American voters just don't have any power and are totally stupid. Universal healthcare saw majority support before Obama took office and it was his main plank. Then in order to get ACA to pass the Republican controlled House the Democrats ditched the single payer option totally. Then they still couldn't pass it and forced it through by way of executive order. The people didn't really have much say at all - they elected the guy to do it and mistakenly thought that was sufficient. As a sidenote I don't see why single payer needed to remain tabled if it was going to be an executive order anyway - but I'm cynical and critical enough of the Democrats to believe they never wanted it at all anyway. The ACA, for what it's worth, is quite poo poo for the average American, although the Medicaid expansion was a godsend to those on Medicaid and those who qualify for it (not easy, you gotta be, uh, extremely poor, basically totally reliant on the government dole already).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
bike tory posted:I haven't followed the debates in the US very closely so out of interest what is the reason that Medicare for all would require banning private insurance? There seem to be two different ideas, one is "move everyone to medicare" and the other is "let anyone get medicare if they want it", though I'm pretty sure they'd both wind up with the same end result and just get to it in different ways. Even if it's "optional", once everyone can get medicare pretty much zero companies will offer any sort of health insurance benefits anymore which will kill the industry basically overnight anyway. Like I could see a few cushy jobs trying to offer ~premium insurance~ as a perk so you can pretend like you're better than everyone else, but even then I don't see that lasting long since the pool to draw from would be just so tiny it would have to be astronomically expensive to compensate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:uh there's some factual problems w/ your narrative here There was a story a whiiile ago I read about why the public option / single payer were taken off the table before debate even began and to sum it up the answer was "because insurance companies asked nicely"
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
bike tory posted:I haven't followed the debates in the US very closely so out of interest what is the reason that Medicare for all would require banning private insurance?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
Does it really cost 10k to give birth in america though because that is absurd
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
there’s a fee to let the parents hold the newborn for a short time, so yes, it’s 10k+
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:32
|
|
|
the expensive price of births also comes with one of the worst if not the worst maternity outcomes in the developed world
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:uh there's some factual problems w/ your narrative here I mean this is nit-picky and I wasn't verifying anything I wrote just going off of what I remember 11 years ago when I was a dumb teen rolling on weekends. But -
Perry Mason Jar has issued a correction as of 19:37 on Dec 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:Does it really cost 10k to give birth in america though because that is absurd Lmao no. It costs $14k
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:35
|
|
|
The NHS coexists with private healthcare here in the UK without crippling it. Our problem is failing to fund it properly
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
Now if you have a white person office job, it costs you a $200 copay, and your insurance will wind up actually paying the hospital like, $2000 tops, and somehow the hospital will be fine with that 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:the expensive price of births also comes with one of the worst if not the worst maternity outcomes in the developed world like many things, i would imagine that maternity outcomes among people with insurance who take their vitamins and go to the hospital are the same as anywhere else. it's a different story when talking about poor people who give birth in a barn because they have no money or live in a dying town in the middle of nowhere where the only medical care for most people are volunteers who come once a year and set up a medical center that looks like a refugee camp
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
I think it costs like 10-20 dollars to give birth here, if you stay a couple of days I wonder what sort of high tech super birthing equipment they got in America to justify tens of thousands of dollars
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:I wonder what sort of high tech super birthing equipment they got in America to justify tens of thousands of dollars strung out, overworked doctors with six figures of medical school debt
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:03 |
|
|
Shame Boy posted:Are there services you can pay that will do nothing but deal with insurance company bullshit for you? Of course. Law firms do it all the time. They will absolutely stomp on hospital overbilling, if they take the case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:50
|
|