391–400 of 523 posts
It will always be a challenge to allocate limited healthcare resources. It's an unsettled question why the US accepts such an expensive means (private health insurance) of doing so.
It isn't like US public system, medicare, is great. I still end up buying my folks supplemental. This narrative of pubic vs private misses most of the nuance.
Propaganda of the deed? I guess suspects will be a list of people who have been paying into United Health Care insurance who thought they were covered, but got turned down, possibly for a terminal illness, for greater profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well it’s very unfortunate for all Americans that rely on any healthcare company. Since they will all be increasing their rates soon to cover the expenses of 24/7 armed guards, armored vehicles, etc… Edit: Or a reduction in service quality to cover the new expenses.
As if they couldn't just buy that without increasing prices and still make a gazillion dollars.
Why would they all start behaving like charities?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So there is no evidence. The simpler explanation is that political Party A proposed legislation, and political Party B attacks it because a win for Party A is a loss for Party B. And digging into just slightly further makes the claim make even less sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel > Palin's spokesperson pointed to Section 1233 of bill HR 3200 which would have paid physicians for providing voluntary co…
"No evidence" - if you can't avoid misinterpreting every sentence to go off on a rant, this thread is not worth continuing. Insurance companies spent billions of dollars on advertisements against the ACA. This is public record. They did it because they opposed all of the good things the act required - such as prohibiting discrimination base on pre-existing conditions or demographics (other than age), requiring many b…
No one is ranting, but there does seem to be a lot of “I feel like this could have happened, so I am going to choose to believe this happened because it confirms my priors”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was responding to >But sometimes it's the only way to enact change. >In my ideal world, accountability would be these rich bastards getting hauled into congress and charged for the abuses their companies inflict on American citizens. My point is that these rich bastards are playing by the rules the American citizens set up. American citizens have the power to change those rules if they want, but cant agree on anyth…
> My point is that these rich bastards are playing by the rules the American citizens set up. Mmmmmmm.... yes and no? Like it's cliche to blame everything on Reagan but the number of modern social ills that can be directly traced to the Reagan admin and the political movement behind it really does baffle the mind. Ills such as, for example: - The deregulation of corporate finances, that permits the massive stock buyb…
It is like there is a deep denial that real humans often want something different, and that we are forced to share a democratic society with them, which means losing on issues where we think we are right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the interest of brevity, they're not called silencers, they're called suppressors since they don't "silence" anything like in a Hollywood movie. Typically a suppressor will reduce the sound signature of a gunshot from something like 140dBA to 110dBA. Still enough to cause hearing damage and be heard a quarter mile away.
Off-topic, but the US is, oddly, a bit of an outlier compared to some of our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic, where buying one can be an over the counter transaction. It's weird to be in a situation where the US is more restrictive in anything related to firearms, but I assume the European attitude is that it reduces nuisance when gun ownership is more regulated at the front end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who endured UHC for several years, I assure you there is no service quality to reduce. > How do they still have that many customers if their service was so bad? Because the people making the decision to purchase UHC services and using UHC services are two wildly different demographics.
How do they still have that many customers if their service was so bad? Do they have an effective monopoly in certain States?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry you buy into all the misleading nonsense from the prepper gun lobby.. They did widen the definition of dealers, but it's still "a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms." So casually selling guns to friends and family is fine and doesn't require a licen…
Ok I see the final rule does add definitions of "personal collection," so that would cover me. "Occasionally," is not defined, so that's vague. What if I sell 5 at once? What if I sell 1 a week for 5 weeks, is that still occasional? Up to the ATF to decide. After reading the affidavit, it was written before the final rule. The affidavit was written 3/6/24 and the final rule didn't take effect until 30 days after 4/10…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"No evidence" - if you can't avoid misinterpreting every sentence to go off on a rant, this thread is not worth continuing. Insurance companies spent billions of dollars on advertisements against the ACA. This is public record. They did it because they opposed all of the good things the act required - such as prohibiting discrimination base on pre-existing conditions or demographics (other than age), requiring many b…
Someone claimed health insurance companies came up with “death panels”, I provided evidence and logic to the contrary. No one is ranting, but there does seem to be a lot of “I feel like this could have happened, so I am going to choose to believe this happened because it confirms my priors”.
>we let insurance companies label government triage as "death panels"
Who said the term first doesn't matter. Who popularized it does. Insurance lobbyists and the conservative politicians they funded did.
I advocate for the fairer distribution of wealth in society. Not only because it's fair but because it's better for everyone . There are many reasons for this including avoiding the alienation of labor and giving people dignity. All it takes is the ultra-wealthy to have slightly less wealth . So why is wealth concentration bad for society apart from that? Because the ultimate form of wealth distribution is war and re…
[flagged]