this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
456 points (87.9% liked)
Political Memes
5615 readers
1668 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This meme seems reductive. Mandatory protection would also cover a single-payer health system.
There's a difference between protesting poor regulation of mandatory services (ie healthcare) vs a libertarian, "It's my right to die in a car crash because I don't want to wear a seatbelt"
Oh, you didn't get it? The problem is not that it's mandatory: it's that it's mandatory and you get denied anyway. Stop equivocating.
Are we seeing the same thing? Is the meme referencing denial in the room with us right now?
It's right here. But you wouldn't be able to notice it if you tried. ;)
Don't think OP has his finger on the pulse of public sentiment regarding insurance.
This is the most naive thing I've read on the internet in quite a while.
Private insurance is quite possibly the worst thing to happen to humanity, and mandated private insurance to survive is telling poor people to die if they don't slave hard enough.
My comment was directed at the comparison being made. I agree, private insurance isn't a great way to move forward. Although, i don't know that id say it's the worst thing. It's a single domino in a long line of shitty dominos.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's actually explicitly not mandatory.
If your only options for insurance are unlikely to cover the expected costs of your care because of their terms, then it's only a loss. If your coverage might cover tens of thousands of dollars of surgery that you couldn't cover otherwise, then it's prudent to take the insurance fee loss than the surgery loss.
In a system where insurance doesn't exist but the government also doesn't fund it, each individual person would be financially crippled with debt if anything ever went wrong. We've also seen healthcare savings plans and mutual funds equally or even moreso capable of such fraud and unethical terms.
Ideally, we would elect representatives who want all healthcare funded through the government. The government is very clearly capable of operating at a deficit, and in fact would spend less under that system than they do currently on healthcare through subsidies and programs which compete with insurance companies despite not having authority over medical pricing.
I actually think a better analogy is treating it as a tax than a racket, currently. It's still not accurate, but if you avoid paying it long enough then you get the mother of all fines. If you avoid paying a racket, you'll also get the mother of all fines, because they're gonna break your fucking legs.
In a system where insurance doesn’t exist but the government also doesn’t fund it, each individual person would be financially crippled with debt if anything ever went wrong.
-
No. If the insurance didn't create the atmosphere of territorial turfing, prices would be naturally set by competition. They would be much more accessible.
-
Let us not forget the amount of claims that get denied in order to guarantee financial solvency for the middleman parasites.
.
Ideally, we would elect representatives who want all healthcare funded through the government.
Yeah. Let's just support this nonsense by printing more money. /s
If you avoid paying a racket, you’ll also get the mother of all fines, because they’re gonna break your fucking legs.
Direct violence is out of fashion. Now it is all about systematic financial crippling into homelessness and starvation.
No. If the insurance didn’t create the atmosphere of territorial turfing, prices would be naturally set by competition. They would be much more accessible.
Hospitals aren't very competitive. Theres maybe 1 in a large town and that's it. Small practices are already competitive. You do have a point about insurance companies intentionally driving costs up, but the hospital networks themselves have even more say and the only way to take that power away is having regulators set the prices and not the providers.
Let us not forget the amount of claims that get denied in order to guarantee financial solvency for the middleman parasites.
Average 18% denied, less than a percentage of denied claims appealed. So 82% of claims get covered.
Yeah. Let’s just support this nonsense by printing more money. /s
Actually, as I mentioned, the government would spend less than they currently do.
Direct violence is out of fashion. Now it is all about systematic financial crippling into homelessness and starvation.
Because nobody ever wins with direct violence. Everyone loses.
If the insurance didn’t create the atmosphere of territorial turfing, prices would be naturally set by competition. They would be much more accessible.
Healthcare suffers from several very competition distorting Economic effects.
- The so called "expert advantage", which is the situation were the buyer doesn't have the expertise to judge the quality of the service the seller is offering.
- That buyers are willing to pay just about anything to survive, so unlike pretty much everything else the upper limit to prices is incredibly high (basically, everything a person has plus how much debt they can take in).
- As somebody else pointed out, healthcare service provision is geographically constrained for a lot of things, the more urgent the situation the worse it gets, so for example if you have an accident and your life is in danger, if there is only one Hospital in town that's were the ambulance will take you, so you literally have no choice.
- The cost and time to train medical professionals as well as of the equipment, means that for anything beyond simple clinics there is a high barrier to entry into that market.
Unlike the ideological pseudo-magical fantasy bullshit that some politicians spew about the Free Market in order to defend certain choices of theirs that benefit those who given them millionaire speech circuit fees and non-executive board memberships (namelly to justify privatising things that are in low competition or even natural monopoly markets), Free Market Theory only works for a few markets where there is a natural tendency for competition such as, say, teddy bears or soap, not for markets were there are multiple factors reducing choice and the ability of buyers to judge the quality of what they are buying before they buy it.
This is literally the dumbest thing I read in a while. My health insurance provider is not going to break my legs if I fail to pay them.
yeah you just die lol
No, but of your legs are broken they'll try their best to do nothing even though you do pay.
At least the mob is honest about what you get for paying them.
They would if they could.
UHC AI had some cost-saving suggestions
It’s manufactured outrage- a lemmy specialty.
Yeah, they will do worse
No, they won’t.
Simp
Doesn't a protection racket beat you up / destroy your house / damage you in some way if you fail to pay?
Insurance (either private or public) doesn't do anything negative to you if you don't pay, you just don't get any positive benefits.
It turns out that calling something a different name is a good idea when it's literally a different thing.
The difference is how many lawmakers you're willing or able to buy.
So you're under the impression that the public likes our insurance system and takes issue with it being accurately called a ripoff? ... That's not the case. And we knew that even before a killer was widely praised for killing an insurance CEO
view more: next ›