Out of 169
Out of 169
If US Health Insurance companies are so great at the service they provide, why don't they take their business internationally? All these other countries must be so exasperated with their useless, inadequate federal healthcare programs.
Oh, wait, they're not.
It's kinda funny living in Japan. We are all legally required to carry health insurance. It's available (income-based) from the govt, though many companies provide it as well paying half or more. Most of us who grew up in the US are talking about how cheap it is and most of the Europeans and Canadians are talking about how expensive it is (often about the point-of-service cost (30% of bill for most, though much cheaper than prices in the US) though some also the insurance). We also have out-of-pocket max (monthly cap, I think), and spending over 100k in a year opens up tax deductions (think of that like $1000 in USD/EUR for how it feels to spend that; the exchange rates are obviously different).
Jeez I'm lucky the deductible is yearly here in NL, last few years Ive blown through it in January alone.
And as a Canadian, I hear Americans talking about how we wait so long for care.
We do, but not for anything that is life threatening.
I don't mind waiting for an x-ray for something routine if some kid needs an x-ray to figure out if his skull is cracked or something.
I'm an American and a regular appointment is still likely a couple months out because of insurance.
So much better!
Rest assured, that's just rhetoric peddled by and for useful idiots to "justify" why things shouldn't change.
My response to wait times is to train more doctors, nurses and lab techs. Denying poorer workers from having access to healthcare so that wealthier people don't have to wait is cruel and a banal evil.
You will not find any disagreement by me.
oh yea, emergencies, cancer diagnosis usually doesnt wait that long in EU too, just regular appts. even in the states if your own "state subsidized healthcare, you can also be waiting months or even almost 6 months for a appt, secondly you will also encounter rude employees that just hangs up on you too. i was in an insurance based medical facility/hospitals, its barely occupied most of the time, so i think the insurance just like justfying the increasecost of the insurance by building unnecessary facilities, before 26, my previous insurance was doing just that and still doing to this day.
also some insurance in general are allergic to older people too, they price them out, they have no need to "drop people from thier insurance" , when they can just price them out, this also helps them skew results like denials or getting terminated from thier insurance.
All good points.
I would, 100% of the time, rather live under a social triage of conditions, where those who have the most need, get the most and most immediate care. If I'm not going to die from my medical issues, I can wait.
From your description and what I understand of it, American medical triage is less about who needs the most care, and more about who has the most money.
I'm a first aid trained person. Changing the way people get triaged for what their issue is.... That's a good way to get people killed.
Canada is number 32. Maybe the US should become Canada's fourth territory. We should talk to Premier Trump about it.
I vote for giving Luigi the Death Note
he would be more akin to PUNISHER? the death note drove the "user" insane.
Free Luigi!
That's basically the worst of all the developed countries with some developing countries doing better than us.
If you look well there are good health providers in south America.
Free Luigi
Not nice.
This is the truth. My aunt comes to my third world country to treat her teeth. And for her is cheaper to come, pay the plane, pay the treatment, stay some days and return, thant to pay the same treatment in the US
69
Nice
You should also Luigi anyone you know who voted for Trump. They are directly responsible for everything currently happening and do not deserve to feel safe.
Edit: Sorry I have no sympathy/empathy for those that voted for Trump. They knew exactly what they were voting for and now we all have to pay for it. They don't care if people die as long as they get what they want. Fuck em.
Don't ask for things you won't do yourself, you look like a fool
Too bad I have to have plausible deniability.
We can't really be mad at them. They have been manipulated into the beliefs they think are their own. Oh and their IQ is far below average.
We should focus on killing rich people and/or redistributing their wealth.
Define rich.
STFU!
No u
He should have done something about it instead of throwing a tantrum with a deadly weapon.
What would you suggest?
Running for office, starting a competitive company, or just general political activism against the people who caused this problem, literally anything.
Here is the perspective: Luigi was the son of the multimillionaire owner of Mangione Family Enterprises. He had an Ivy League Education and a cushy tech job with 6 figure salary. He 3D printed a gun at home, took $20,000 cash to live off while on the run, and murdered a stranger.
Imagine how much good you could have done in his position, instead of throwing it all away.
🥱
What did Brian Thompson do/fail to do that makes this statistic his fault, and for death to be the morally justified consequence?
Edit: I'll reframe this as a statement. Celebrating the murder of Brian Thompson and especially advocating for more acts like it is abhorrent behaviour.
You think none of the decisions of the CEO of UHC affected this statistic at all? I feel like there's a LOT of UNC policy that he was involved in that results in worse healthcare in the US, including but not limited to "AI" for denials.
I don't think we have a uniform moral calculus, but my personal one doesn't justify the death penalty in this case. I can imagine a moral calculus that does though: hours of excess suffering caused > expected lifespan = death penalty.
Benefiting from a system that exists to hurt others so people like him can benefit from it.
I wish people like you weren't so eager to go to bat for your oppressors. Do you think Brian Thompson would ever ask about why someone did something to you that you didn't like? Or was he too busy having fun with your money?
Celebrating the murder of Brian Thompson and especially advocating for more acts like it is abhorrent behaviour.
No, it is not. The owning class must be pressured into respecting us more than profits. By any means necessary. The government and police will not stop mass social murder, so we must do what we can to save lives.
The only reason to avoid advocating these acts is that this style of PotD-like adventurism generally isn't a sustainable tactic, compared to the power of building a mass movement.
He led an enterprise with the goal and the result of making a bit more money by ending and ruining numerous lives. And he made it the most extreme case of such an enterprise.
And yes, when somebody has a life threatening or disabling condition, and their established medical provider prescribes the best standard of care, and the money guy says “nope I don’t think you need that, denied” they are actively doing harm to numerous people for a small monetary return. That is evil.
It is LAWFUL Evil, however. Yes, just like in D&D, but it is an apt description for many real people. Genuinely bad people can appeal to the “rule of law” just as easily as genuinely good people when it suits them.
It is not an accident, or an unforeseen consequence, or even negligence. It is an intentional decision to harm others in order to make a bit more money than he would otherwise.
Compare with something like a drunk driver. They are generally looked down upon, and if somebody drives into a tree at 100mph with a BAC triple the limit, not many people outside their own family will shed a tear for them. But that does not mean those people support the death penalty for DUI convictions. If the driver kills somebody else and lives, then maybe it turns into negligent homicide. They get a pretty bad punishment because their actions can directly be proven to have caused an innocent death. And it may have been predictable, but it wasn’t intentional.
Brian Thompson set policies that caused many orders of magnitude more death and suffering than any drunk driver could hope to. And more importantly, his plans were to continue doing more of the same. So it’s not a question of what punishment he deserved, but of preventing future death and suffering. You know, the #1 thing that makes homicide justifiable.
However, having “the law” on his side, there were legal and corporate structures in place to insulate his decisions from the direct 1:1 cause and effect tied to each individual death and to each individual day of suffering. That gets him off the hook legally, but in no way does it do so morally.
I used to think more like you. Surely since the rule of law is the ideal, we should choose that side of any argument like this. But I have seen too much bad shit done by people whose primary skill is arguing in bad faith to make horrible things sound palatable. The law is not divinely inspired, it is written by humans. And sure, most of us will agree that people can get it wrong. But it is even more important to recognize that laws can be created with malicious intent as well.
And I will not be blocking you, because I would like to hear some of your actual thought process and hopefully not a low effort quip or just crickets.
He led an enterprise with the goal and the result of making a bit more money by ending and ruining numerous lives.
He led an enterprise with the goal of making money by offering healthcare insurance. Unless you're a mind reader, then your assumption that he wanted it to be earned specifically by ending and ruining lives is conjecture.
the money guy says “nope I don’t think you need that, denied”
"I don't think you need that" is not a valid reason for rejecting a claim. They cannot simply say no without providing a reason.
they are actively doing harm to numerous people for a small monetary return
How does that work? Where does this return come from?
They get a pretty bad punishment because their actions can directly be proven to have caused an innocent death. And it may have been predictable, but it wasn’t intentional.
Who doles out this punishment?
Brian Thompson set policies that caused many orders of magnitude more death and suffering
What policies are those? Be specific.
However, having “the law” on his side, there were legal and corporate structures in place to insulate his decisions
Which decisions are those and what laws helped insulate them. Be specific.
I used to think more like you. Surely since the rule of law is the ideal, we should choose that side of any argument like this.
I do not think the rule of law is ideal. I think there are tons of laws on the books that are immoral. I also notice the killer didn't target any of these lawmakers.
I also don't care about Brian Thompson as a person, I don't care that he's dead either.
In fact, I think it's possible to have a situation where vigilante justice is morally justified.
This is not one of those cases.
Reframe, it's an expression of how powerless everyone feels that they are willing to support murder as it starts to become the only option that still holds a chance of change. Not the plebs fault, we're literal swine.
Don't worry, you're clearly not engaging in good faith and have been blocked so I won't see which dumbass logical fallacy you pick for your reply.
