Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Not going to lie the CEO assassination had me thinking would this be "woke" or anti woke. Like I feel the fuckery of private insurance in America would to a a temporary uneasy armistice for a hot minute.
Maybe the assclownery of private insurance transcend it maybe I don't know.
I just know due to my line of work Humana is number one on my shit list.
Maybe the assclownery of private insurance transcend it maybe I don't know.
I just know due to my line of work Humana is number one on my shit list.
Not long ago a sheriff shot and killed a judge at his desk all recorded on cam with few details available as to motive. Aside from minimal hints at sexual impropriety and possibly communication with the sheriff's daughter. Though if this released testimony is anything to go by, is a whole lot more corrupt than just that
Last edited:
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,647
- 3,207
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Amusing timing aside, did said backlash by any chance look like this?
Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield halts anesthesia payment policy after backlash
The health insurer planned to cap the length of time anesthesia can be covered during medical procedures in three states, prompting outrage.www.nbcnews.com
View attachment 12433
And there's another argument that the system would work fine if sociopaths didn't go above and beyond to exploit it. It's impossible to "asshole proof" any system.
People don't usually sell unless the value goes up. There will also be easy workarounds like having a spouse hold those assets or manipulating the market at end of year so you don't really gain anything or just selling each year so you only have to pay for gains a single time.
You just said the government needs more money, what if they didn't need more money?
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,647
- 3,207
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
...and here I think of it as a break from the twisty, hilly, mountain on one side, cliff on the other nature of many WV roads.
Do it enough times and the people involved will take down the system (or at least accept it coming down) because they don't want to die. The problem is the required consistency.
Remember: If you criticize me for my opinion, that's cancel culture. If I demand that you be destroyed for not being 100% in lockstep with me, it's patriotism.
I've often repeated the truism "if a poor man robs a rich man with a gun, that's crime; if a rich man robs a poor man with a pen, that's business". It's never really occurred to me until now how easily we could replace "robs" with "kills".
These are just basic manipulations that 1) already exist and impact capital gains, and 2) already have well-known methods of address.
You expect the entirety of the deficit to be covered by efficiency savings, do you? Delusional.
And even if it was at all realistic: there would be the argument to shift the existing burden from workers onto those who accrue wealth without working, or from those with lesser means to those with greater means.
Last edited:
In theory, yes. And I'm not 100% opposed to it...
Unfortunately, I suspect what actually happens in practice is that the people at risk of dying end up charging the public even more so that they can afford extravagant personal protection details or - even better - get the state to do it off the taxpayer's money.
Let me start by saying that I personally don't think killing the CEO of United HealthCare was the best idea and I don't blame people those who aren't upset about his death.
With that said,
With that said,
Americans consume more healthcare because they are already rich vs. the rest of the world and decadent in their goods and services consumption, again relatively speaking what else is there to buy. The answer does not come from throttling healthcare to those who aren't 'economically viable'; it doesn't come from forming death panels and insurance companies gatekeeping healthcare. It doesn't ultimately come from shoveling the sick, worried, and old into a public option (the only reason I support this is because the Overton Window on healthcare has been moved.). It doesn't even come from either cost-rationing staff salaries or rationing healthcare in a universal system, even if right now that's the best option available.
It comes from innovation; it comes from technology that at first makes people uncomfortable, like robot/AI surgeries, better scanning tools, and better consumer-grade querying tools like ChatGPT that give you side effect profiles on drugs from which to act as a starting point for googling treatments. A president that invests more in this would help, but funding isn't an issue; the US already funds new treatments like this on a high scale. It's a very non-interesting take that a head of state, a team of scentists, or even a single company can't solve this by themselves, but it's the truth.
Note this is in response to a substack account defending the company UHC. It states Americans are too fat, consume too much healthcare, have too many 24/hr hospitals, etc.
Edit:
It comes from innovation; it comes from technology that at first makes people uncomfortable, like robot/AI surgeries, better scanning tools, and better consumer-grade querying tools like ChatGPT that give you side effect profiles on drugs from which to act as a starting point for googling treatments. A president that invests more in this would help, but funding isn't an issue; the US already funds new treatments like this on a high scale. It's a very non-interesting take that a head of state, a team of scentists, or even a single company can't solve this by themselves, but it's the truth.
Note this is in response to a substack account defending the company UHC. It states Americans are too fat, consume too much healthcare, have too many 24/hr hospitals, etc.
Edit: