Trump Medicare pick Dr. Oz says uninsured ‘don’t have right to health’ in resurfaced clip
2 years ago by just_another_person to c/politics
Americans have eaten at the garbage pale of ideology for so long, they genuinely believe "rights" really are God Given and self-executing. What does a "right" to health care get you without a public health care system?
Who overrules the hospital administrators that would rather shovel you onto the curb than have the physicians in their employee extend you care? Who overrules the AMA when it caps the number of licenses to provide or schools to issue those licenses or lobbies to limit the number of medical centers capable of providing care?
Health care has to come from somewhere. Doctors need training. Offices need equipment. X-Ray machines need electricity. Patients need a place they can go to receive care. As folks from the UK to Cuba to Gaza have discovered, if you're denied the resources to provide the health care you have a right to, it isn't worth much.
The obvious answer is that Medicare for All would be a great place to start in the USA. If not that, then laws limiting the ridiculous profits of insurance companies and regulating payouts would be another option, combined with some kind of Medicare for the poor that is better than the current Medicaid bullshit they have available.
Most of all, ensuring that doctors rather than insurance companies are deciding the care plan would save many lives per year.
That wouldn’t work because there is no regulation. It’s very easy to spend all profits on stock buybacks and say you’re now non profit
Nonprofits also act like for-profits, for example giving absurd salaries to the C suite, planning luxury retreats as business trips, hiring friends as consultants and paying expensive compensation for nothing, and so on
I saw many "cancer research" non profits that waste most of donations in bullshit and then give what's left to actual research grants
Most hospitals are nonprofits.
So are several large health insurance companies, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield and Kaiser Permanente.
Guess what: nonprofits deny care too. So do single-payer health care systems.
As folks from the UK to Cuba to Gaza have discovered, if you're denied the resources to provide the health care you have a right to, it isn't worth much.
Fun fact: two of those three have far better outcomes than the US for profit system and the last one likely would if not for the US government supplying the bombs and political cover to destroy it.
Basically all you've managed to prove is that you're ignorant about the quality and availability of health care in other countries and will compare for profit healthcare to genocide and ethnic cleansing in order to make it look good.
That's why I never used that silly phrase. Rights aren't given to you by a magical sky daddy. They're given by and enforced by mutual agreement between people who won't put up with their friends and neighbors being treated unfairly.
Are you a Bit dumb or just pretending to be?
All of this can be solved with Legislation, and even the shittiest place in the UK has better health Outcomes and Life Expectancy than the average US Citizen
All of this can be solved with Legislation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belling_the_Cat
A great idea that nobody can accomplish isn't so great.
Well all other developed Nations have figured it Out and achieve significantly better Outcomes than the richest Counties in the US.
Maybe Just Accept that you are wrong
If everyone just said fuck it and stopped paying their insurance, it would crash not just those companies, but domino into taking out the entire stock market.
Like, these companies are worth so much, and they invest in others and people invest in them. If their entire revenue stream is stopped at once that's it.
Which makes it kind of a nuclear option, one I've intentionally not mentioned and haven't seen anyone else either.
But the day may be coming
If the employee cancels their plan, the corp ain't going to keep paying.
I don't know why someone would read my comment and imagine I meant corporations should cancel their employees insurance...
But I think that's what happened here
We don't get to drop out of plans at a whim.
I'm on VA, so I admittedly don't know much.
But to my knowledge marketplace can be cancelled at any time, thru employer may only be certain times.
But I do know you can stop any non court ordered payroll deduction at any time...
Some dumbasses even do it for OASDI and tax withholding and then act shocked when they get the bill at end of year.
When someone stops paying their insurance, they stop getting healthcare. Most people don't want that.
It's kind of like saying "If everyone said fuck it and set their car on fire, then oil companies would suffer". Yes, but they aren't the only ones who would suffer.
When someone stops paying their insurance, they stop getting healthcare.
When people pay their insurance, they don't get healthcare either.
No, they generally do get health care. In fact, most insured adults give their health insurance an overall rating of “excellent” or “good”, even if they are in poor health.
It's true that there are horror stories, but those are not the majority.
Which is why there was so much sympathy for the UHC CEO and why his killer is universally hated.
Well yeah? Once it crashes you can rebuild it properly.
Well, the people who survive can rebuild it as they see fit, anyway.
I have no reason to think that the general public will suddenly be more organized than the surviving oligarchs.
If only the oligarchs survive, they'll quickly die off from having nobody to actually keep the world running.
Which is exactly why we’ll never have single payer: It would crash the economy and put millions out of work.
Downvote me all you want but it’s the exact reason Obama gave for not pushing single payer
I’m not sure how that puts people out of work? Still need people to process the claims, they would just work for the government vs the company. Which for them would probably be better long term getting federal benefits and retirement.
It's only a couple companies at this point. There's been so many members over the years. Economy would be fine. We probably had more tech layoffs this year than would lose their job from closing these leeches
The problem is that there are large parts of those companies that are replicated multiple times that would be made redundant.
Each company has an IT department, legal department, marketing department, and claims department, among a lot else. Most of those would be redundant or unnecessary in a single payer system.
Part of the reason single payer is more cost effective is eliminating administrative overhead. And “administrative overhead “ is code for jobs.
Any job that gets between a patient and the care they need is a job that needs to die.
And that seems logical! But we've talked about combining the local city and county for cost savings. Turns out, it wouldn't be too big a deal.
Not like if we doubled the population we'd need the same amount of people approving construction planning. We'd pretty much need double. And that's one of 1,000 examples.
But you're spot on with admin overhead! That would indeed drop. Not by half, as in my example, but it would certainly drop. The biggest drop would be profit. And we can all agree healthcare shouldn't run like private enterprise.
I'm totally with you. Yes, got single-payer would slash thousands and thousands of jobs, maybe a million or three. And yes, that would fucking hurt. It's like the Obama quotes you posted. We didn't start on a level playing field, we started in a ditch.
Lemmy hates our sort of discourse. "NO! It's all very simple! Why won't you talk simple!"
For the same reason not paying our insurance will crash the economy: Big parts of it would go out of business.
The obvious solution is to put a plan into place to transition to a new system over time. There's no reason it has to come all at once, unless there's a viable way to do that without collapsing markets.
The conclusion to any problem is never, and should never, be "Welp! The problem is too big to fix now! Guess we'll just leave it as it is!". Every problem has a solution. Most problems have more than one.
Further than that, as a recently unemployed working class person who was paycheck to paycheck before my freelance gigs dried up a month and a half ago (slow season started early this year), fuck the stock market. Why should I worry about the extractors losing money when they have already created a system in which, through no lack of effort on my part, I have nothing left to lose. I'm in the top 10% of technicians in my city, in a very niche field, in one of the largest cities in the US, and I can't afford my bills because my industry is dominated by a single monopoly. Anyone who doesn't serve the monopoly directly either serves it indirectly, or feeds on its scraps. Small company owners (I've worked with many) justify paying people just slightly more than the starvation wages the monopoly doles out. Unions are gaining ground, but it's very slow progress and they haven't really expanded far beyond entry level positions yet, which I leveled out of well over a decade ago.
Fuck the stock market. Fuck the rich. Why should I care about them when all they do is extract?
I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but isn't there an obvious inefficiency here that reduces the standard of care provided?
Like if a national healthcare system doubles the number of administrators involved, there will be less money available for actual health stuff.
Yes, and the inefficiency of private health insurance creates thousands of jobs and powers a $2.2 trillion industry.
The stock market has survived fire sales before and it will survive it again. Oops we got too large to easily stop has never been cause for anything except getting the stick out and beating them down to size.
Privatize ALL the health insurance companies.
Reduce inefficiencies (fire all the parasites that don't do actual work, like the CEO's, etc)
Continue operations as normal, but now with 100% guaranteed claim coverage.
Over time, phase out the need for people to "deal with insurance" at all and make the whole thing transparent.
Somebody call Luigi.
He's tied up.
Nah, we talking about the real Luigi
Waluigi
WARLUIGI
Nah, the Republicans would rather see you spend twice as much per capita (the whole population!) to cover a third of the population via public insurance and then get you guys to then spend money on private insurance and then have to pay any time you need any care.
You know... Fiscal responsibility...
Yes only the Republicans have a leader they listen to and built a platform on. Harris had no influence on her policy choices!
but her campaign told her not to show support for it in order to court the Republicans that were on the fence.
Seems like they told her to do that with a lot of things.
womp womp.
I'm holding out hope that the Democrats decide to court Democrats, but based on the past few elections I don't have very high hopes.
This page doesn’t exist or can’t be found.
They hated ACD for telling the truth.
Single payer healthcare is so complex to implement that only 22 of the 23 most developed countries in the world have done it.
The US system is grotesque.
The US system is state sanctioned terrorism of the civilian population by the plutocracy, for profit.
Part of the problem for the US is that such a huge amount of gdp is buried in the masses of beauracracy that makes up the US healthcare system, it's essentially acting (economically) as proxy government spending to prop up a failing economy. The average US citizen is so heavily propaganda'd into hating government run projects that the sensible economic stimulus (government infrastructure projects or public services) are well and truly off the table.
What this ultimately means is fixing healthcare isn't just breaking up the cartels, preventing price fixing and untangling the web of nonsense that makes up the US private system... unless you want to inspire a massive crash (which absolutely has real human cost), it also means redistributing government spending and implementing (unrelated) government run services and/or projects to keep all these people employed (which would also mean re-training and potentially relocating) - all of which needs to be done against the overwhelmingly loud voices screeching "government employee bad".
While I agree with the sentiment (where this should be the case), this isn't actually true for some of these countries.
Australia, for example, though not sure if we're included in this 23, we have a private system also.
For all emergency care, it's single-payer. Private health insurance / private hospitals are not permitted to provide emergency care, nor out of hospital car, but all other hospital care is allowed (I am simplifying, as I'm not super clear on it either). Further, private health insurance is not allowed to cover things that Medicare doesn't at least also partially cover.
Sounds good right? Sounds like private health is kept in check? I mean, sort of, but it's still really profitable, and you even get a tax break.
What it doesn't stop, is prices getting higher and you having to cover the difference because health care employees are not necessarily employed by the stat, and can set their own prices (which is either covered by private insurance in hospital, or out-of-pocket outside hospital as private can't cover that).
If you don't have private health, you often have to wait way longer in the public system for non-emergency (but still medically necessary) care, like hip replacements, eye surgery etc.
It's kinda fucked, everyone ought to be in the same queue, and if things are taking too long well then gee, I dunno, pay more / hire more / train more doctors, this doesn't take a genius to figure out.
Healthcare should be provided by the state, in-full, covered by taxes. We (and the US for that matter) have plenty of tax revenue to cover this. And if you're feeling really frisky, perhaps very slightly increase corporate taxes and tax breaks for the wealthy.
So we now have a two tiered system, where the wealthy get care first, or whoever can afford to pay. And you even get a tax break for it.
The US system is trash, and ours is utopian by comparison, but let's not pretend like all 22 of 23 countries have true, universal healthcare.
We don't, let's aim higher haha
They do in other modern countries. Oh wait, except they don't have "uninsured" people. If your government can't guarantee you basic things like clean air and water, protection, health... what the fuck are you paying taxes for!?
what the fuck are you paying taxes for!?
dead brown kids!
Dont forget the billionaires!
More lanes for more roads, because more lanes will definitely fix gridlock
More of them, but no plan or resources towards maintaining them
"Those who make peaceful reform impossible make violent revolution inevitable."
Probably his father too.
Anyone decent will be fired for not doing terrible things or quit because there's too much pressure to do the terrible things (cf Trump's first term). Most of them are happy to do the terrible things this go round, though, because they were identified in advance for being willing to do the terrible things.
Don't forget name-recognition (even outside the social media spheres.) When's the last time so many cabinet picks were names the average American already knew? It's not like we're the most informed group of people. Yet out of all the millions of people in the United States, what are the chances that the best people for these jobs are ones the public has already heard of?
Trump has gotten as far as he has by treating his own name like a brand. It's not surprising that he prefers to associate with others who've done the same.
Just think: you all did the right thing, holding your nose at the polls, voting for Fetterman to block Oz. And now you have both of them.
Nah, I probably have some decent brain damage and am solidly progressive.
We better lay off the concussions, got it haha
They're going to keep squeezing to find out.
I mean we still don't have Soylent green factories and we aren't using teeth of the poor as a cheap source of aquarium gravel yet, so there's still some blood yet to squeeze from this rock.
Delay, deny, depose
Under your plan, UnitedHealth’s revenue from Medicare Advantage would roughly double to $274 billion annually,” the Democrats wrote.
That's the point.
I'd like to see another outcome, like the government withdrawing their contracts due to fraud, but regulatory capture is strong here.
I’d like to see another outcome
It wasn't possible...
https://www.opensecrets.org/...
They bought Kamala too, even if she won they'd be winning.
Shit like that is what depressed turnout. Moderate Dems just keep taking loses like that because their goal is as narrow wins as possible.
They want to be just better enough than Republicans that they can win. But they ignore that better candidates would easily win.
Behind the bastards podcast on this piece of shit.
America Last. WTF, the Government of Putin wants an epidemic to break out. How many people in the red run welfare counties would be affected by Dr. Oz's plan? Indeed, a shit ton and they voted for it.
I'll make it much simpler to understand. The only thing putin wants. Is America out of the way. Whatever form that takes. So that he can pursue his plans in Eurasia.
Oz went on to explain that most people have misread the Constitution and Bill of rights, people can have life OR liberty OR the pursuit of happiness. Only the rich will get all three...
It's an interesting perspective on a phrase that literally says "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".
FFS, this guy thinks it’s a prix fixe menu!
It's neat watching lemmy's centrists acting like they object to the idea of letting people go bankrupt and die, in that order, for insurance companies' bottom lines.
Democrats killed the public option before a single Republican voted on the bill. Joe Lieberman was enough of a Democrat to run for VP, and you don't get to disown him just because he did what you wanted but don't want to admit wanting. And it's not like he did what every centrist wanted by his lonesome, either. Ben Nelson was instrumental in killing the public option.
Biden promised that he was going to revisit the public option. Like so much of what he promised, it was always a fucking lie.
Telling the truth that their favorite political sports team actively hates them just much more subtly always gets them upset.
No matter how much you use their preferred sources, reasoned arguments, direct quotations, there's always someone or something else to blame or they do illogical comebacks and then claim they won. If I wanted that, I'd be a Republican.
It's genuinely bothersome that the defaulted "Not evil party" has a bunch of mindless zombies who will agree with everything like the "Actually Evil" party, but they have enough IQ points to reason their way why they love a party that doesn't know they exist, and would gladly have them removed from the country if it meant a bit more money or 0.1% election gains.
Dr. Oz is a charlatan who's allowed to exist because the vitamin and supplement industry lobbied against FDA oversight and won.
He's the literal product of corruption.
And Snakeoil
Did anyone read the article? I didn't really understand it, the way he phrased it. I mean I'm not defending him or anything. He said a lot of other crap, but in the article it sounded like he was saying uninsured didn't DESERVE the right to health, but rather didn't currently(2013) POSSESS the right to health, because they were uninsured. He said that people should be screened for free. Not sure what kind of screening he was talking about but....
Is that the way you read it?
That's not the way I read it, but I can see where you're coming from:
Give them a way of crawling back out of the abyss of darkness of fear over not having the health they need, and give them an opportunity, cause they don't have the right to health, but they have the right to access a chance to get that health.
Comes across as "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" rhetoric to me.
No I get it. I'm not defending the celebrity medic. I'm just saying that I think the title may have been misleading. But quite seriously I found what he did actually say a bit confusing. That's all.
I agree with him. That's why I think we should ensure that everyone has some amount of medical coverage.
I voted Harris, I'll die under this you fucking ghoul
You first then, don't volunteer the vulnerable to be your fodder
Dr. Oz told members of the National Governors' Association (video below) that uninsured Americans "don't have the right to health," but should be given "a way of crawling back out of the abyss of darkness of fear over not having the health they need." That, he suggested, could come via physicals in a "festival-like setting."
Additional context doesn't make him sound much more convincing.
He literally says "...because they don't have a right to health...". What are all of us missing that you've so handily figured out the context for?
I don’t think he’s saying people _shouldn’t _ have the right health, just that in America, they currently do not.
But that’s just my interpretation and it still doesn’t help qualify him for the role trump selected him for.
We can see your comment history.
Including the Modlog.
Ohhh, so I can say whatever I want as long as it's a movie reference?
In the context of the movie, that was a perfect joke.
The character delivering it was a doctor delivering results to the patient: an average Joe from the early 21st century (or late 20th. I forget exactly when he was from). The person you expect to speak professionally and intelligently. But in this world everyone is crass, profane, and idiotic, having a vocabulary that's rivaled by most 2nd graders today. It's fitting, then, that someone like a doctor, speaks like a schoolyard bully.
The quote omits the beginning part of the line, "It says here on your chart", which makes it more clear that it was originally delivered by a doctor.
Ergo, despite the words themselves being considered more inappropriate than they were even when the film was (relatively recently) released, the parent posters usage of them was perfectly appropriate: he was trying to present himself as intelligent, like the doctor, but instead came across as a crass schoolyard bully.
Though it does raise the question at which point it is okay to use inappropriate words as part of a quote. I was listening to an audiobook in the car today, a nonfiction history book, in which letters and poems from freed slaves were read aloud. These readings made strong and contemporarily appropriate usage of the "n" word, but when it gets shouted out my speakers at a red light, it'll turn heads.
@lemmy.world
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
Even the people who pay for insurance don't have rights either.
save