this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2025
276 points (99.6% liked)

politics

26427 readers
2456 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If private insurance companies are lobbying to prevent Medicare for All because they'd lose their business, then make them the claims processors. Like, the government pays the bill, but the carrier process the claim as a contractor to the government. That way they can still be publicly trades and still keep their profit margin, and people still get guaranteed healthcare. They'd even be able to keep what they've killed in previous profit, and they'd not have to be the source of funds for actual claims.

Since there are a few companies, maybe we could even use a regional distribution of the populace for who has which card on their wallet. So maybe the east coast has Blue Cross Blue Shield, the west coast has Aetna, and the central states have Kaiser?

This way everyone wins: heal insurance keeps in business and still makes money; the people have healthcare; and the government improves the lives of its population, has fewer bankruptcies, and can tax the revenue of its contactors like they do with their current contractors.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Borger@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Obligatory “not American” warning, but I think the problem is more complex than just making the government a customer. Countries with public healthcare generally don’t refer to private providers because the cost is orders of magnitude higher than a state run operation. (With few exceptions; my country paid for me to go to a private hospital once because I needed a specialist for something uncommon, and there weren’t enough in public hospitals / I was overspill.)

You don’t just have hospitals, you have an entire economy of insurance, administration, and severely inflated pricing to account for all the useless jobs and bloat. If none of that goes away, then I don’t see why the government would be incentivised to use them, rather than just set up state hospitals.

Also, unrelated but I just re-read the title; does Dr Oz still have any credibility whatsoever?

[–] Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 4 days ago

To answer in order:

  • Yes, the administrative overhead (and potential removal of private insurance brokers) is a massive problem for Med4All. That is why Sanders and Warren have previously put forward retraining and redirecting those workers into their prior plans for the system.
  • Yes, it would better for us to have state health clinics. However, the current idea is to have Medicare have even more leverage to reduce cost overruns (Many hospitals accept their lower rates due to the sheer scale and consistent payments by the program). This is a nuanced issue though, and I could imagine things like overbilling for redundant services (aka fraud) could be an endemic problem for providers looking to game reimbursements.
  • No, he never had any credibility. He just had a presence on television and a following. Our current president decided to place him in a major position over public health likely because he saw him on television, not because of any (nonexistent) competency.
[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

You don’t just have hospitals, you have an entire economy of insurance, administration, and severely inflated pricing to account for all the useless jobs and bloat. If none of that goes away, then I don’t see why the government would be incentivized to use them, rather than just set up state hospitals.

Well, even if the government is now paying an inflated price, how would that be any different than what it currently does? Besides, what other expenditure would be a better use of the money? Bailing out Argentina? Giving the money to people who give the president a gift? Buying another aircraft carrier and base over seas? Funding Israel at the expense of your populace?

I mean yeah, it's a massively bloated system. But, at least the populace would finally have health insurance. Someone getting hit by a car wouldn't result in them facing bankruptcy after they wake up in the hospital but have no health insurance.