No, that's definitely not it, because Americans also get terrible value for money in healthcare. They spend so much on it because they're shackled to a profit-driven, shite system.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Just to add, the US budgets more, per capita, for healtcare than any other nation, even countries with a public+insurance-based systems (like Germany and France) and countries with universal systems (Like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark). And that is just state budget, that is not how much each person spends on healthcares, meaning that the US spends more on a less accescible system than universal healthcare, but also less accesible than public+insurance.
Now, we can argue about affordability on scale and geographic influences, but if the entire US market negotiated collectively I would be that a lot of drugs could be bought at lower costs, and that's just for starters.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,647
- 3,207
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Profit margins on healthcare should be zero. There are certain industries where "profit" is immoral.
Health insurance makes profit by scamming you out of your money. You pay into insurance every month, and they try their best to provide you as little healthcare as possible because they make money on you not being able to use the services you pay for.
You saying the profit margins are low is just saying "they aren't screwing you as much as they would actually like."
United Healthcare in particular is known as one of the worst insurance companies in terms of denial of care to their customers.
It's also not particularly true. UnitedHealth Group had a net profit in 22 and 23 of just over 6% (net income over 20bn annually). The average in all industries is ~8.5%. So, lower than average margin, but hardly "very low"-- still healthily beating quite a lot, and well above most other companies with comparable employee numbers (like Target).
This will be very long, boring and uninteresting as a response goes because, of course it is, and no, I don't work for the state department.
I am going to propose a response to this by answering it in Part 1
Part 1:
While I agree the insurance companies should be out of the picture, and to my own detriment since I work in healthcare and my city has multiple insurance companies. I don't necessarily want an efficient healthcare system. I want more healthcare if I am sick relative to the rest of the world. Yes, buying the latest iPhone and Swiss Watch is great. But I would rather buy a few more years of my life. Does that mean the current system is great? No. I don't like it because the non-working poor that can't work get Medicaid or Medicare for all old people, which is great; they are really the sickest of the bunch, but then at 30 thousand dollars you get crap healthcare, and until you make like 80k-100K you get okay healthcare. Even the rich aren't served well by this system. If they are smart and develop their knowledge of what treatments work, sure they solve their illness when they get ill. But if they are an idiot like RFK or Steve Jobs on this issue, they get brainworms or die because their doctors are too afraid of speaking truth to power. The American healthcare system stinks because they don't give the right treatment to the right person more than they could.
If I were a policymaker and I am not (not for a lack of somewhat trying), I want Jamaican nurses to immigrate to the US; I want more aggressive immigrants to get jobs they are suited for in US healthcare; I want to have my cake (high quality healthcare) and eat it too (high quantity of healthcare). It stinks for the rest of the world, but it's what the US does. Because yes, there is the UN, the WHO, etc. But the US is the top dog here, and they are attracting the most aggressive, dynamic, and competent people to it. And it would be against US interests to share without anything in return against the current status quo.
Part 2: The solution to better healthcare for the rest of the world.
No one here, including the Americans or most of the world, is going to like my solution for this problem.
Give Americans what they don't want and what your local elites don't want. And let them be in charge as much as possible, and then guilt trip them when they act in selfish fashion, which they may do. The more, the better. You’re not going to get Americans to care about you while pointing missiles at them to threaten Americans is to threaten a country with the most dynamic people on the face of the planet. Good luck with that. The other option is the status quo. More dynamic people go to America, including from countries the US bombed, and have geopolitical contentions with than any other power since the British Empire. It doesn't matter how much land/resources you have (Russia); it doesn't matter if you used to be a regional empire (China, Turkey, Iran, India). How can you beat the Americans? Your best people keep going there to start families. People that you should have cultivated or would have created innovation in your country. Now why did I mention this in a section about healthcare? Because everything is connected. America has great geography, people, institutions, resources, and ideas of how anyone can be an American. Your country won't. It doesn't matter how many nuclear missiles you have; America will find a way through it. It doesn't matter how many people hack electric grids in the US or make the politics more complicated and annoying; Americans will fight through it by increasing social cohesion, which in some instances is a good thing.
Yes, I am going off-topic somewhat, but the problems of lower life expectancy will be fixed. Because it's a bullseye, and Americans love hitting goals like that when defeating the Axis, European powers in the western hemisphere, sticking the Moon Landing, winning the Cold War, revolutionizing agriculture, and are currently winning the nominal GDP growth vs. China.
In fact, if policymakers in the US were more aggressive, they would start depopulating entire dynamic sectors of other countries’ economies even more. But they don't due to wage backlash in the US, so they play a boiling pot game of eating business investment and skilled labor.
Which brings me back to my main point, which is funny enough about money/quality of life but only towards the end. If your undynamic and you stay in your country for family reasons, that makes sense logically; you can't leave your country as a human being. I feel compassion towards that, and I hope you realize your elites are genuinely grifters, selfish people, prideful people, and people who get paid to act like they have a point implement poor policy when they tariff their economies to death, for example. (Ex. Brazil.) If your dynamic and you stay in your country for nationalistic reasons, you are a specialist who is good at their job, but still corruption will be endemic, or at least your country will rely either on the goodwill of the US Navy or you haven't changed in 100 years mostly. Good luck competing against the US. Also, we kicked you out of power because in the international system there is no police, and I don't want you to send missiles towards my allies for your domestic audience of undynamic people, corrupt people, and the few competent people in a sea of non-innovation areas and people just collecting a paycheck, plus your likely spamming my countries created social media companies and my population with spammy messages (Russia, China, Iran, maybe North Korea). Most people and most countries are somewhere in the middle, but that isn't great; it means they don't think critically, rationally, on a cost-benefit analysis, etc. If you can't get to the US and want to, I feel sorry for you, and I wish our policymakers were more aggressive with immigration policy. If your country wants to have better relations with the US, but your idiot paid off, government doesn't (Georgia), I also feel sorry for you. The last point is this: if your dynamic and the cost-benefit analysis is that now and in the future, it's better to be aligned with the Americans or even immigrated to America in the median term, you will make more money, have a better quality of life, and have made the world a better place in your own way by stepping one more step towards a united world where democratic people unbounded by nationalism, authoritarianism, and inefficient 1900s ideologies. A united humanity, so to speak.
So why let America control the world? Because America is going to win no matter what. It's sucking the innovation out of your countries. Unless you wish to be stubborn like North Korea, aggressive but ultimately fruitless like Iran, which is a Morton’s fork that stabs you only. America will win in a system where it's the status quo; alliances win out and everyone comes out against everyone else. The Americans will win if the rest of the world gives the Americans control of their logistics systems; that is true, but they will win less because some of the fruits of being a hyperpower in logistics, warfare, tech, the economy, etc. will go to everyone else, and American policymakers know it.
So why don't some to most Americans want a united humanity despite America having the skills country to do so over the long run? Because many Americans are great at their job and bad at the voting booth, to sum it up. Some may also want to retain the American privilege of American prosperity being confided mainly to America and maybe some of her allies. Some are nationalists who generally think American isolationism was great when it created two world wars, a Cold War and another current Cold War (due to American indecision in Syria, Ukraine, and free trade). Some don't think about politics, despite politicians thinking about them in how Congress and their fellow citizens vote, and yes, it does affect their wallets and sometimes in the short run, and yes, this is bipartisan in every political ideology among those who don't know that their exists power in collective action even if you are the only supporter of an issue. No man is an island, not even the ones who act like it. Again, the reasons are diverse, like America, but I listed a few of the options.
So, since I will eventually get attacked as either naive or uncritical about the US, and every reason under the sun. I will give you my personal perspective. When I was born, I probably had ADHD and schizophrenia-affective bipolar. At least this was my interpretation of my first memory in preschool and how I acted. I was also always sick with something in China. My dad both drank, had bad dental health, and was a smoker, but he was economically aggressive. My mom was economically aggressive too, but while she didn't drink or smoke and even later got my dad to stop it in the US, which my dad did with US nicotine gum. But my mom, and dad didn't graduate middle school, however economic aggressiveness, and dynamism knows no education, so they immigrant to the US due chain migration/family migration due to my even more economically aggressive aunt. They then worked their way up to the American dream of owning their own house. I was the first person in my family to go to college despite have multiple mental illness, and multiple comorbidities, I didn’t get good grades until high school, and I suck at many forms of math like geometry(Yeah I sucked there), algebra 1(I got a B in Algebra 2, Pre-Algebra), calculus(I did get an A in Pre-Calculus), and statistics(My AP test score however was a 4) relative to my high performing peers in my top five percent public school according US news. Also, if I was a millionaire I wouldn’t be posting this often, or semi-dox myself. Also, I translated for my parents and know like 1.5 languages (I know a Chinese dialect that I can’t read or write in). So, while I am not a MIT grad, and I don’t have a STEM degree, I don’t consider myself to be that undynamic unless you talk about my energy levels which I am fixing by researching my illness. Because undynamic people/countries/organizations stand still and don’t fix their problems when they have problems if they can fix them, and people who want to be dynamic do, and people who are already dynamic fixed their problems a long time ago.
Here's the nicer ChatGPT version without a-lot of my American centralism:
Part 1: My Perspective on Healthcare
I agree that insurance companies shouldn't dominate the healthcare system. Ironically, this viewpoint is somewhat against my own economic interests, as I work in healthcare in a city with several major insurers. However, I don’t necessarily want an efficient system in the traditional sense. I want a high-quality system where, if I’m sick, I receive better care than the global standard.
Spending money on luxuries like iPhones and Swiss watches is nice, but I’d rather spend to buy a few more years of life. The current system is flawed. Medicaid and Medicare serve the sickest people, which is commendable, but the middle class faces significant challenges. If you earn $30k, your healthcare options are terrible; at $80k–$100k, they’re just “okay.” Even the rich suffer from this system, especially if they lack the knowledge or confidence to challenge their doctors.
The fundamental flaw in the U.S. healthcare system isn’t its inefficiency but its inability to consistently match the right treatment with the right patient. This isn’t just a healthcare problem—it’s an institutional one.
Part 2: Healthcare Beyond America
The global healthcare problem is even more complex, and my solution isn’t likely to win popularity contests. Here’s my take:
- Immigration as a Catalyst
The U.S. should attract dynamic, capable healthcare professionals, like Jamaican nurses or skilled immigrants, to enhance both quality and quantity of care. This approach strengthens U.S. healthcare but naturally creates challenges for the countries these professionals leave behind. - The U.S. as a Magnet
America thrives because it draws the world’s most ambitious and talented individuals. Other nations lose out because their brightest minds migrate here, making innovation and systemic reform difficult in their home countries. - Strategic Realignment
Countries wanting better relations with the U.S. should focus on aligning policies with American interests while recognizing the need for genuine reform at home. Aligning with the U.S. isn’t just about geopolitics; it’s about embracing innovation, pragmatism, and problem-solving. - Global Healthcare Integration
If America took a more proactive approach to healthcare diplomacy—helping other nations build capacity while integrating their expertise—it would create mutual benefits. However, such integration often conflicts with U.S. priorities of maintaining competitive advantages.
America is uniquely positioned to succeed because of its combination of geography, innovation, and inclusiveness. This isn’t just about material resources but about the institutions and culture that continually attract the best and brightest. Even nations that oppose the U.S. struggle to counteract its magnetism.
Despite America’s flaws, it tends to overcome challenges—whether it’s defeating global adversaries, revolutionizing industries, or setting bold goals like the Moon Landing. The same could be true for life expectancy or healthcare reform, given the right political and social alignment.
A Personal Perspective
I wasn’t born into privilege. My parents immigrated to the U.S. through chain migration, driven by economic dynamism rather than formal education. Despite their struggles, they achieved the American Dream, owning a home and providing opportunities for me. I was the first in my family to attend college, navigating mental health challenges and academic difficulties. My journey wasn’t linear—I struggled in subjects like geometry and statistics but excelled elsewhere, earning a 4 on my AP Statistics exam despite initial hurdles.
I’m not a prodigy or an MIT graduate, but I don’t consider myself undynamic. Being dynamic isn’t about perfection; it’s about recognizing and fixing problems. Individuals, countries, and institutions that remain stagnant fail to progress. The U.S., for all its issues, excels at moving forward—and that’s why it continues to lead globally.
Conclusion
America’s healthcare system is imperfect, and its global dominance is both a blessing and a challenge. For individuals and nations alike, progress requires dynamism—a willingness to address problems, innovate, and adapt. Whether it’s healthcare, geopolitics, or personal growth, the key lies in recognizing opportunities for change and pursuing them with determination.
Some headlines seem tailor worded to schizo-activate fossilised subcultures calcified into the terminally online substrate
There's no fckin way that comment section got out alive, though bets soon opening on that lol
There's no fckin way that comment section got out alive, though bets soon opening on that lol
Still not as bad as car insurance in Michigan. Get rear ended? Watch premiums go up 40%. Doesn’t matter if the teenager admitted on the police report they weren’t paying attention. “No fault” = everyone’s fault. No wonder some just drive without it (which is also a big driver for cost hikes). Broken POS system.
x.com
x.com
He has... interesting views, alright. But it proves a point made in a news article in the past. It's not going to be some random lefty professor that does this (they are too comfortable), and a lefty activist may do this, but they are easily dismissed by the general public.
It's going to be a conservative, or even a centrist, who finds out about the real suffering about the world. He saw the truth about the healthcare insurance companies in his volunteer work, just like how I saw the truth via statistics on homelessness, etc. There are people who are just normal people who start unions.
By the way, this guy has some shockingly similar political views with me. He likes Peter Thiel. I think Peter Thiel is smart; he is amazing at programming and has a github, and while I am not amazing at programming, I do have a SQL page for my portfolio. I just happen to be more politically aware than he is (don't name yourself on social media), and he's more committed than I am.
My point is it could be anyone, even someone who went to college and could have done anything with his life.
Granted, I disagree somewhat with his views on immigration. I think at some point, when the birthrate decreases for every country, we will run out of immigrants. He thinks the point about birthrate is more cultural and that we can brainwash people into having more children. That being said, Gen Z couples don't want to have children, which means they will be harder to blackmail into getting jobs and stable lives, which means a more conservative disposition, like the millenials.
How do you become an ex-Ivy League student? There was a big break up?
That two timing hussy Ivy broke up with him to date Harley Quinn
Seems they have him and he's apparently more handsome then people expected. So fearful CEO's imagining him in his underwear to make him less threatening won't work.
FFS, another claim of mine denied!?!?!?
...
...
‘He is no hero’: Pennsylvania governor rips people praising UnitedHealthcare killer
Josh Shapiro warned Americans not to let their ‘real frustration with our healthcare system’ lead them to ’dehumanize’ victim Brian Thompson
www.independent.co.uk
No. Killing people by signing paper to deny coverage using AI is still killing someone. Period end of story.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,647
- 3,207
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Luigi Mangione was apparently caught with the murder weapon on him as well as the manifesto about why he committed the murder? Not buying it. It's been days, if the killer was smart enough to effectively escape the scene he would have been smart enough to dump the gun rather than carry it around on him. This is a frame job.
Always assuming that he's not just some other guy with a gun that hates the evils of capitalism that sorta resembles the shooter. Admittedly unlikely, but hardly impossible.
