I know its be a sour pill to swallow for the investors. I don't care if that "industry" dies. They didn't care about the all the people they sacrificed for the sake of the investors, why should actual people give a shit about them?
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:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The US won’t get that for decades if ever. The insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, medical manufacturers, etc etc, will never willingly lose their trillions. They will kill people like Boeing killed John Barnett.
Well, if you look at what I wrote, the companies would keep their business and relationships. They'd just transfer the fundamental guarantee over to the government.
This could be a boon to the medical field because those who couldn't afford health insurance can now get care. That means more medication is consumed, more beds are filled, all while insurance companies keep a business model where they still make profit without the risk of paying the costs of care.
Won’t happen. More likely is preexisting conditions will be an issue again. Rolling back America, every day.
Well, that couldn’t be unilateral like it is now because of the 5th Amendment, which requires due process. The 5th Amendment specifically states in relevant part:
No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Healthcare insurance seems like an ecconomic liberty interest to me.
On top of that, the government is actually insentivised to ensure its populace recieves coverage. As I said in my origional post, ensuring healthcare would mean fewer bankruptcies. Also, the government isn't insentivised to deny coverage like the privately-traded insurance providers because the government doesn't have a profit margin to improve for its share price.
The Republican healthcare plan is that poor people should just die already.
That's also their plan for food insecurity, the housing crisis, energy costs, and climate change.
Less people = climate change fixed & more planet for them.
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?
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.
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.
There is no Republican health care plan because Obamacare is already the most conservative idea that could even conceivably work. It was directly based on existing Republican plans, like Romneycare in Massachusetts. It only became a toxic idea to them when Obama pushed it. They've been promising an alternative plan "any day now" since 2009. That plan doesn't exist and never will.
It's no coincidence that Republicans push HSAs. They don't fix anything, but they are a tax haven for people of means. The funds can be used for general retirement later.
A 401k is money that goes in tax free, grows tax free, but is taxed when you take it out. An IRA is money that's taxed now, but grows tax free and is withdrawan tax free. An HSA, though, does all three. Tax free now, tax free growth, tax free withdrawal.
Combine that with the fact that you can invest HSA funds in the stock market once you reach a certain threshold. Of course Republicans love it.
If you're in the US, do what you need to do for you and your family. Often, taking the HSA with a Bronze plan is your best choice. Just keep in mind that it's a tax dodge masquerading as a fix for a broken health care system.
I worked fur blue cross for 11 years. Let them all burn.
They aren't needed. They literally will just add excessive cost. Just like they do now.
State runs medicare fine (or did before doge). A state department can handle it.
Most Politicians*
A majority of U.S. Citizens support socialized healthcare or some kind of public option as far as I know.
Broken clock... twice a day... etc
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.
This already exists. It’s called Medicare Advantage Plans.
Then it'll be easy to make universal.
I really don't disagree about the government's currently delusional priorities. None of those things are better, or even good uses of taxpayers' money. I suppose it would be an expedient way to make use of already existing healthcare facilities and staffing, at least in the interim before they can start gradually streamlining.
My comment was influenced by my mentality as someone who does live in a(n actual) welfare state, but I'm sorry I was so ignorant about it!
I suppose it would be an expedient way to make use of already existing healthcare facilities and staffing, at least in the interim before they can start gradually streamlining.
Right, get over the hurdle first and then start streamlining later in increments down the road. Right now, people are dying in the street with the current system. I guess its like a trauma ward situation where you work on the worst first. You get to it all eventually, but stop the hemorrhaging first.
My comment was influenced by my mentality as someone who does live in a(n actual) welfare state, but I’m sorry I was so ignorant about it!
No worries. At least you came to recognize that you are speaking from a place of privilege. It really is a shame about how the United States is a third world country in a lot of ways.