you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 1 day ago (1 child)

Maybe it's my English, but I don't read this as NYT defending the current US medical system

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (4 children)

    It's not. The people in this sub didn't read the article, they're just reacting to the headline

    It's a 7 year old news article about the potential economic impacts of proposed sweeping reforms to health care in the United States.

    It's literally just an article for economists and investors about potential changes to the market

    The quote isn't even the focus of the article, it's just one guy pointing out that there's really nothing to base our predictions on because nothing like these proposed changes has happened before. Health Care is a trillion dollar industry that employs over half a million people nation wide and these companies stocks are popular among retirement accounts; what happens if we just wipe all of that out? Is it better to do it quickly? Slowly?

    Nobody is saying single-payer health care is bad, in fact the article even points out the positives, it's questioning what happens to peoples retirements funds and jobs and what impact would that have on the market as a whole and the economy in both the long and short term

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Retirement accounts are a real issue, but could be solved by having the top wealthiest shareholders pay out to the poorest shareholders until retirements are guaranteed. This could also be combined with Social Security reform that requires wealthy people to contribute more and extract less from the system.

    Presumably many of the actual healthcare workers and some of the admin workers would still be needed in a nationalized system. The insurance agents and related admin can all get other jobs. No one dreams of being an insurance agent as a kid, these people would be free to pursue more meaningful and useful work.

    None of these are insurmountable problems for a government that actually serves the people instead of money. This article is just prevarication to cover our current governments inaction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    If you're asking people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, then of course the problems are insurmountable. I never claimed to have all of the answers, but I know for damn sure that it is a lie that there is no solution, as these "experts" seem to be implying.

    Also, no need to be so fucking rude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    Why did the journalist for the New York Times waste all that effort asking professors and people that work at banks

    because they're propagandists for the epstein class

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 22 hours ago (1 child)

    Oh shit, you figured it out. They also get paid by NASA to lie about the shape of the earth. And vaccines cause autism. The news is all lies and literally every single person on the planet is in on it. Journalists, publishers, professors at universities, EVERYBODY!!!

    Thank God for random people on the internet that know to never trust the experts or read any articles because they already have all of the answers. Live in a world full of those people is awesome!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours ago (1 child)

    Wow you really think the nyt stands for something lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 12 hours ago (1 child)

    That's exactly what flat earth supporters say about NASA

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 12 hours ago (1 child)

    Okay so the nyt is legit because the moon landing was real got it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago* (1 child)

    it's not even true, it's a false premise -- single payer medicare for all for all wouldn't ban anything private, in fact medicare itself already works alongside private coverage and has done so for many decades. it's nonsense at every level.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 22 hours ago (1 child)

    Aw man, if only you had actually read the article....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours ago (1 child)

    If only they didn't publish a clickbait bullshit tweet

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 12 hours ago* (1 child)

    They didn't. The tweet says that Medicare for all would abolish Private insurance. At the time, this was correct. The Medicare for all legislation that was being discussed was going to do literally that. Abolish private insurance

    Then there's a quote that says, "There's no precedent in American History". This is also true. Private Health Care, for better or worse, is a trillion dollar industry that employs over half a million people nation wide and makes up a decently sized portion of peoples retirement portfolios, never in this history of America has such a thing existed one day and been destroyed the next

    The tweet didn't say anything about private insurance being good or bad. The tweet didn't say anything about the abolishing of private insurance being good or bad. It just stated two facts.

    They're talking about doing something that has never been done before

    Somebody who didn't read the article decided, for no real reason at all, that it was a hit piece and replied. Then somebody else who didn't read the article thought the reply was this epic sick burn (even though it's stupid as fuck because it has literally nothing to do with the article) and then shared it on sites like reddit to a bunch of other people who didn't read the article and left a bunch of other stupid as fuck comments.

    Here we are almost 7 fucking years later, and you're all still idiots still not reading the article, still sharing the image because you think it's relevant, and still commenting like you know something

    Worse, is that when I point out that it's stupid as fuck to comment on something you haven't read, you guys think I'm the idiot. That's how fucked we are. Your own reply to me proves you know clickbait exists and you still don't think you should read the article before forming an opinion about it. That's beyond fucking stupid.

    Just read the fucking article. Educate yourself. That shouldn't be a crazy thing to ask people to do

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago* (1 child)

    Save the markets they said, it will ruin most people like you they said, they dont want their hegemony over health terminated like some stupid ass CEO shot in the street like a dog as they enter their earnings call while stepping over his body.

    (In other words: fuck people's retirements when its tied to death panels. You should not have invested in a death economy).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments