I have never seen the public respond so unanimously to something. Even for, say, bin Laden's death, there was quite a variety of responses easily found.
And in case anybody thinks of that "Stalin quote", it's actually by Kurt Tucholsky.
I agree with this - I don't think I've ever seen something unite both the r/Conservative and r/EatTheRich subreddits so completely.
That said, I did see a comment on a NYTimes article that I thought was apt: it's a bit rich for Americans to now complain about how awful our healthcare system is when we just gave full control of government to the party that has rejected any healthcare reform for decades. I mean, this was the party that vilified false "death panels" in Obamacare, and now people are united in their anger about claim denials?? Obamacare is certainly not perfect (though one reason it was proposed is because Obama didn't think "Medicare for all" would be politically possible), but it's better than what existed before, and I have only seen Republicans try to tear it down consistently since it was passed and I've never heard them put forth any viable alternatives that would actually improve the situation.
In defense of electing Republicans ... it's not like Democrats do more than talk about fixing problems most of the time. And the last time Republicans had control, it turned out they didn't actually have the internal support to actually try to get rid of Obamacare.
The "both sides" argument isn't entirely true, but it isn't untrue either.
> it's not like Democrats do more than talk about fixing problems most of the time.
Obviously, when speaking in generalities, this always just turns into a Rorschach test online, so won't enter into that debate.
But when looking at Obamacare/ACA specifically, I think its mere existence would disprove the point you are trying to make. Obama and the Dems put a ton of political capital into trying to actually do something about healthcare in the US. And, again, to the point that it's quite rich for Americans to bitch about the state of healthcare now, the Democrats got pretty destroyed in the 2010 Congressional elections specifically because of Obamacare. As stated above, Obamacare is not perfect, but it drastically reduced the percentage of uninsured Americans. Sorry, but I think any attempt to "both sides" on this specific issue is complete nonsense, and the historical record shows that.
Very open to considering any reasonable attempts at all by the Republican party as a whole or even any individual Republican states to improve healthcare or lower the cost of it in this country in the past 20 years. I am just not aware of any.
> I've never heard them put forth any viable alternatives
The article does the same thing. It describes symptoms but never even comes close to a propper problem descrtiption or a true solution.
> My suggestion to you is: Let’s do it all over again. We’ve got to try something
> “The Capitalist’s Case for a $15 Minimum Wage.”
No! This is not a solution either.
The solution to inequality is not the capping of the lower bound (though, its a nice gesture) because the lower income already has a hard cap: zero.
The upper bound instead stays uncapped! Wealth or inequality is the relative span between the boundaries and this article proposes something like "why cant you guys down there be a little richer" while inflations contiunes to roll and home ownership continues declines. "But hey, arent you looking forward to get that 25$/h raise, when i tell you its time?" ... "Because, look how much you earn now. We certainly life in a more equal and just society." I dont like this limited way of thinking. Its effectively trickery with numbers.
> Many of us think we’re special because “this is America.”
I assume many rich and powerful tell to themselfs stories about societal problems, their solutions and how detached their way of life from them is.
Wealth redistibution has to start at the top and to be fair, there are some rich people advocating for more taxation/regulation, but they are heavily out spent by the other side. The author is definitely on the better side but still short sighted.
I think it's important for non-americans to understand "we" didn't really vote them into office. there were two choices put up that most of us didn't want... only about half of eligible voters are even registered to be allowed to vote... and those registered voters "chose" Trump 50.1 to 49.9.
then on Election Day the biggest google search was “is Joe Biden not running for reelection ?”
this is the freedumb that the right-wing thinktanks have been planning for decades
To put some numbers on it, the official UnitedHealth post currently stands at 62,000 "haha" reactions out of 67,000 total, or 93% "haha" reactions. Easily the most unanimous Facebook reaction I've ever seen.
The well of sympathy is running dry for a lot people. I don't think people are going to take up arms in great numbers – or at all, perhaps – but, like Clarence Darrow, they might "read some obituary notices with great satisfaction.”
> “I don’t believe there’s any justification for murder,” she says. “I think it sets a terrible precedent, and logically I know that a society that functions this way is doomed to collapse. Yet I still couldn’t temper my emotional reaction. I did feel a little bit of satisfaction.”
A lot of people have come to the CEO's defense saying don't blame the players, that they're just working with the incentives of the system. But I think what gets missed by that objection is it is a system that they actively created and sustain.
According to OpenSecrets, UnitedHealth Group has spent $5,860,000 lobbying in 2024.
That will only accentuate the problem. When 20% tariffs land and people can point directly to the rich persons in charge, I wonder what their response will be?
They'll cheer for it and ask for more? That's what we've been seeing with Trump's rallies, and the strong support he got at the polls.
Sure, a few malcontents might get angry and try shooting at someone. It only takes one angry person to pull off a successful assassination, as we just saw in NYC. A couple of other angry people shot at Trump on the campaign trail. But that wasn't related to his popularity, since he won overwhelmingly in the election afterwards.
I suppose the rich people are probably going to need to hire more bodyguards, so this might be a good time to buy stock in a security company.
Point of order: Trump won the electoral college "overwhelmingly," but his popular-vote victory is incredibly narrow. His victory does not indicate overwhelming popularity among the American people.
The point here is that the article title is "The Pitchforks Are Coming for Us Plutocrats", yet, a decade later, the plutocrats are more in charge than ever. And are popular with the masses.
That accusation has been leveled at a lot of politicians, often Republicans. But I'm not sure it's true in this case.
I think Donald Trump is a stupid person's idea of a mean person, who's mean to the people they want to be mean to.
We had something similar in George W. Bush. Nobody thought he was smart. People often said that he was preferable to have a beer with. That hardly seems like a good reason to be President, but it was remarkably popular. Like Trump, he did eventually win an election by popular vote, not just the Electoral College.
I have a dark suspicion that for a great many of his voters, they think he's in fact quite stupid. And that's what they want.
The more I've read about this Brian Thompson guy and his company, the less sympathy I have, and the more I feel he got what he deserved.
I'm just glad the assassin got the right Brian Thompson: the actor with the same name is a cool guy, though he was kinda scary in his role as the shape-shifting alien who assassinated hybrids.
His company was not an outlier; you have similar stories from Signa, AIG, and Blue Cross Blue Shield. BCBS had unveiled new rules to stop covering anathesia during surgery after the scheduled end time, regardless of if the surgery was still in progress. Those were rolled back after the killing.
American healthcare is like this. Your doctor wants to give you some treatment, some other person decides how much it costs, then insurance, who you paid ahead of time, who you are legally required to have, who has never and will never see you, decides that it’s too expensive to pay out. Even though that’s what insurance is for. They get rich off of this; you suffer.
The thing we pay for called "health insurance" is really not insurance. Real insurance covers catastrophic unpredictable losses up to a pre-defined limit. That's all. What we have is some sort of forced pre-payment for routine medical care combined with some limited coverage for the unknown.
What's stopping you from getting a high-deductible plan and paying cash for routine care? I'll admit you have to negotiate down the fake prices yourself.
I do have an HDHP+HSA plan, but you still have to run all your routine care through the insurance, (a) so they negotiate a lower price and (b) so it is applied to your deductible.
Truly "paying cash" for routine care would be difficult as most doctor's offices have no idea how to quote a cash price for services, unless you go to one of the very few cash-based practices.
> BCBS had unveiled new rules to stop covering anathesia during surgery after the scheduled end time, regardless of if the surgery was still in progress. Those were rolled back after the killing.
You paying more for surgery is not a positive outcome, unless you are an anesthesiologist, in which case: well played, your trade group dues paid off mightily here.
This is not a thing. You cannot simply continue surgery with less anesthesia. The issue here is that CMS has guidelines for the anesthesia requirements for different procedures, and anesthesiologists have become notoriously for surprise billing for much higher amounts than those guidelines.
Again: this is a dispute about bills patients don't pay. The most routine imaginable surgeries --- appendectomies, laparoscopic gall bladder removals --- all have average costs that greatly exceed average out-of-pocket caps for insurance.
CMS is far from authoritative on what it takes to keep a particular individual under. The practitioner is ultimately the one with authoritative knowledge. CMS is not in the operating theater.
Now if what we need is to deal with a rash of insurance fraud, insurers are more than welcome to hire people to sit in on the theater to gain more representative data. But let's be real here. Insurance is more interested in improving their take home spreadwise rather than improving patient outcomes.
And I beg to differ it doesn't happen. I remember quite vividly my wisdom teeth being extracted. I was just under threshold for being able to do anything about it, but awake and aware for the entire thing. Anaesthesia is not something to screw around with.
CMS is Medicare. Your wisdom tooth extraction was almost certainly not really general anesthesia. Were you intubated? During an extraction? I doubt it.
Same here for my wisdom tooth but very clearly remember them mentioning there were two options (one like you described and one where I would be out completely). Absolutely zero connection to the current discussion.
Are you being serious? Rationing anesthesia during surgeries is not a thing.
The least expensive general anesthesia surgeries I can find already greatly exceed the out-of-pocket annual maximums for ACA market insurance plans (which have worse out-of-pocket maximums than the employment-based insurance plans most people have). You are not paying the money Anthem was trying to get anesthesiologists to stop overcharging!
This is a dispute between two giant corporations, and people are inexplicably (and literally murderously) taking the side of the one that is making more money, and is resisting Medicare's guidelines.
I'm not kidding: the messaging heist anesthesiologist trade groups pulled off here is unreal. They're some of the highest-paid specialists in the entire profession, and people are literally talking about giving their lives to protect their right to overbill you.
What I'm failing to understand in your argument is how this relates to the scheduled end time for the surgery which presumably can be different from the actual end time. If X hours are planned and it takes X+2 hours, who pays for the 2 hours? If the insurance doesn't pay for it, what does the out of pocket maximum have to do with it? Are the anaesthesiologists just legally compelled to finish the procedure without billing for the extra time? If so, what incentive does this create vs. simply negotiating down the rate?
None of this has anything to do with what's actually happening in the OR. The most common surgery performed in the US is a laparoscopic appendectomy. The low end of the average cost of that appendectomy as an outpatient procedure significantly exceeds out-of-pocket caps for insurance.
* This is not money you were ever going to pay.
* There is no such thing as cutting anesthesia off early because of a billing dispute.
You are getting rolled by a professional trade group for some of the most highly compensated, well-off people in the American economy. We might just as well take up arms against the rapacious costs of M&A litigation in the finance industry.
I have no personal connection to this issue at all apart from living in the US. Rather than fixating on your perception that I do, maybe you could contribute to the discussion by actually answering any of the questions I raised in your reply to my comment?
Is that what happens when Medicare, which pays for the overwhelming majority of all surgeries, denies anesthesiology bills exceeding CMS limits? Seniors just pay for their own anesthesia? No.
These companies also outsource to middlemen companies that do some of the claim denying dirty work for them (see evicore). That’s why they all universally provide a bad service. But I have to say, Aetna is by a long shot worse than others. Look up stories of moms being denied coverage for a routine delivery. Aetna seems to regularly deny first, and then force these exhausted and vulnerable women through long drawn out appeals process. It’s just a way for them to delay payments and change their cash flow. Executives should be in jail.
There's a long discussion about this on another thread, but if you're complaining about the BCBS anesthesia thing, you should look into how much you actually understand medical billing, because your complaint would also imply you find Medicare unconscionable as well.
What we need at this point is Universal Basic Income. If billionaires understood how UBI benefits THEM, for sure we'd already have it.
What billionaires own today is essentially a piece of a giant debt-based economic sugar puff.
UBI is a way to replace the debt vacuum with money. You've got to put cream in that sugar puff so that it holds its shape.
Else the debt in our debt-based system will soon suck all the air out and it will collapse on itself.
Watch "Hidden secrets of money" - There is a segment in there which explains money creation and how there is always more debt in the system than there is money available to repay it.
This zeitgeist on the topic is ridiculous; nobody can even detect wealth inequality. And historically people knuckle under when there is a huge status discrepancy between them and someone else. It is insane that with all the problems and successes in the world today people are arguing that the problem is that some people are very well off. It can't possibly be a problem and the people pushing that it is are hurting their and others ability to organise usefully.
If there is a systemic problem, it is almost certainly either living standards in the absolute or the rate of change of living standards. If my living standards are consistently improving I really don't care about anyone else and I suspect more people work that way than admit to it.
Boomer here: at 25, I was living in a group house with three other men. I strongly suspect that men of 25 working at dead-end white collar jobs can still afford to share a group house.
There seems to be a belief among some on HN that the prior generations went from college to law school to partnership track in a white-shoe law firm. Some did, and a knew a couple of them. Most of us didn't.
The wealth inequality leads to a power inequality in a system where money can influence politics and policy, which is most of them.
This leads to politicians and policies that mostly bend to the wealthy investor class instead of the working class.
The working class feels (correctly) that they aren’t being well represented.
The wealth inequality in isolation may not be a huge problem, but there are many second and third order effects of this. We aren’t just talking about “own a mansion” wealthy, we’re talking about “buy an election” and “prevent reasonable healthcare reform” wealth and power.
"people are arguing that the problem is that some people are very well off"
most people don't really care that some others are "very well off"... people care that corporations have become a massive part of the citizen's everyday lives and wellbeing, but corporations' only responsibility is to maximize profits for shareholders, and when the food is poison and the healthcare is unusable and there are greedy humans running those companies, THAT is what is pissing people off
> in the world today people are arguing that the problem is that some people are very well off.
Of course it is. Look at someone like Musk. Because he is VERY well off hey could literally buy an election, and before that he bought the biggest social media platform and turned it into a right-wing propaganda site.
And in case anybody thinks of that "Stalin quote", it's actually by Kurt Tucholsky.