Luigi Mangione charged with murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson

[Lindsay Lohan 10,760]

I hate to get political on LB but I feel like a lot of people are putting the full blame on these CEOs and healthcare facilities when the real problem is the American government itself that enables and prioritizes these private healthcare sectors... the gun is being aimed at the wrong person. They may be "exploiting the system" but who is the one allowing it...? The government. And I'm sure the government is getting billions and billions from these marketable companies alone which is why there is no rush for introducing potential free healthcare like many other countries do have... It's not as black and white and people make it out to be...

[Candy Necklace 8,165]

Idk I think there’s a metaphor or something going on here 

[American Whore 51,649]

17 minutes ago, fl0r1dakil0s said:

 

like.. yeah lmfao

 

 

go ahead and show me one study that supports the hypothesis that universal healthcare is feasible in the US

okay great, so you understand that concept. so why not scale that same thing? tax the ultra rich, partition people's income taxes to healthcare, and there's the fix. stop sending billions to our military budget that ends up going overseas to other countries each year, for example, israel.

also, you mentioned how wait times would increase. you ever tried getting a kidney or liver transplant in the US? guess what! wait times are already a thing as it is!!! ever tried getting an appointment with a doctor/dentist/etc? there's already wait times.... lol just because hobos or people who can't afford healthcare would now have access to it doesn't mean you won't ever get seen by a doctor. in fact, it might incentivize more doctors to move to your area so you'll now have better access. your entire argument makes you sound class driven. i truly hope some day you grow up and understand your ways of thinking is... gross and illogical.

 

sure! in fact, i'll give you 3.

Economic Effects of Five Illustrative Single-Payer Health Care Systems: Working Paper 2022-02

"In this analysis, we found that economic output would be between 0.3 percent lower and 1.8 percent higher than the benchmark economy 10 years after the single-payer system was implemented, without incorporating the effects of financing the system. Under a single-payer system, workers would choose to work fewer hours, on average, despite higher wages because the reduction in health insurance premiums and OOP expenses would generate a positive wealth effect that allowed households to spend their time on activities other than paid work and maintain the same standard of living. If the system was financed with an income or payroll tax, gross domestic product (GDP) would be between approximately 1.0 percent and 10 percent lower by 2030, depending on the specification of the single-payer system and the details of the financing policy.

Moreover, that wealth effect would boosts households’ disposable income, which they could then split between increased saving and nonhealth consumption. Although hours worked per capita would decline, the effect on GDP would be offset under most policy specifications by an increase in economywide productivity, an increase in the size of the labor force, an increase in the average worker’s labor productivity, and a rise in the capital stock. Additionally, we found that average private nonhealth consumption per capita would rise by about 11.5 percent by 2030. The average rise in nonhealth consumption is larger than it would be if the effects of financing the system were included in the analysis. The effects of a single-payer health care system on nonhealth consumption would be felt differently by people of different ages and incomes. The percentage increase in lifetime nonhealth consumption would be largest among younger and lower-income households after the system was implemented. If the system was financed with an income or payroll tax, nonhealth consumption per capita would be between approximately 3 percent higher and 7 percent lower by 2030, depending on the specification of the single-payer system and the details of the financing policy."

 

Here's another one, in case you don't bother reading the first!

Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses

"In this systematic review, we found a high degree of analytic consensus for the fiscal feasibility of a single-payer approach in the US. Actual costs will depend on plan features and implementation. Future research should refine estimates of the effects of coverage expansion on utilization, evaluate provider administrative costs in varied existing single-payer systems, analyze implementation options, and evaluate US-based single-payer programs, as available.

What did the researchers do and find?

• We found and compared cost analyses of 22 single-payer plans for the US or individual states.
• Nineteen (86%) of the analyses estimated that health expenditures would fall in the first year, and all suggested the potential for long-term cost savings.
• The largest savings were predicted to come from simplified billing and lower drug costs.
• Studies funded by organizations across the political spectrum estimated savings for single-payer.

What do these findings mean?

• There is near-consensus in these analyses that single-payer would reduce health expenditures while providing high-quality insurance to all US residents.
• To achieve net savings, single-payer plans rely on simplified billing and negotiated drug price reductions, as well as global budgets to control spending growth over time.
• Replacing private insurers with a public system is expected to achieve lower net healthcare costs."

 

Here's an extra, for good measure and all

A Business Case for Universal Healthcare: Improving Economic Growth and Reducing Unemployment by Providing Access for All

"If the United States were to implement a system to ensure universal care, American companies would no longer face a disadvantage in competing with businesses from countries, such as Canada, that provide national healthcare systems. Additionally, healthcare would cease to be a large factor guiding individuals’ career decisions. A national, universal care system would level the playing field among domestic businesses, and eradicate the free-rider problem. For all of the above reasons, economic growth would likely improve, which would yield additional self-perpetuating benefits. There is an argument that the taxes to finance such a system would constrain business. This claim is seriously undercut by examples from around the world. For instance, Hong Kong, viewed by many as a “beacon of capitalism,” has universal healthcare. So does Denmark, which has higher levels of entrepreneurship than the United States.92 What is becoming increasingly clear now is that the current employer-sponsored healthcare system in the United States does hurt business."



Good job, you've successfully been lied to by capitalists your entire life and like watching people suffer how cute.

[That Venice Bitch 28,407]

1 hour ago, fl0r1dakil0s said:

go ahead and show me one study that supports the hypothesis that universal healthcare is feasible in the US

Tell me, what exactly works in terms of US healthcare these days? I’m genuinely curious what you think. 

 

“The amount working-age Americans spent on health insurance through the payroll deductions has jumped nearly three times faster than wages over the past two dozen years.“

 

Is it the millions uninsured? That Americans spend more than double other first world countries for healthcare (without the benefit of having better services/access)? Rampant denials of claims? The fact that it was considered a “policy win” for pre-existing conditions to finally be covered by the insurance industry in *2014*? Wages not keeping up with cost of care? Medical bills accounting for HALF of all personal debt or the fact that medical bills are the leading cause of individual bankruptcy? Which part of this works?

 

The biggest issue we have ^^ which is touched on by LL ^^ is that the government (Reps / Dems alike) is bankrolled by healthcare and pharmaceutical companies in order to prevent single payer healthcare from being enacted in the first place. Like… healthcare lobbyists. For-profit healthcare companies. These monsters who earn money off of people’s suffering.

 

It’s not happening because the rich don’t want it to happen. Not anything near the assumption that it *cant* happen. It will absolutely work, that’s why it’s not happening lol

[pradaprince 43]

1 hour ago, Lindsay Lohan said:

I hate to get political on LB but I feel like a lot of people are putting the full blame on these CEOs and healthcare facilities when the real problem is the American government itself that enables and prioritizes these private healthcare sectors... the gun is being aimed at the wrong person. They may be "exploiting the system" but who is the one allowing it...? The government. And I'm sure the government is getting billions and billions from these marketable companies alone which is why there is no rush for introducing potential free healthcare like many other countries do have... It's not as black and white and people make it out to be...

 

Let me add to that: the government functions as security for massive companies and they are essentially the ones who run the country. These companies lobby government (pay them/sponsor their campaigns/keep them relevant) and the government reps themselves invest in these companies. The companies ARE the government; it is one big scam! They are not even trying to fake it nowadays with Elon Musk showing up at Trump rallies, lmao. That's why the government revels in keeping society divisive. If people are too busy fighting each other over trivial (to government), non-$ topics -- abortion, trans rights, for instance -- then they have society focusing on that while the government continuously fucks them up through other channels. 

 

Do you really think Donald Trump gives a fuck about trans people using restrooms, immigrants working or people getting an abortion? LMAO, no. It's a topic that gets him votes from right-wing people and keeps him and his buddies living their privileged lives. The same applies to Democrats, not just Trump and Republicans. 

[shadesofblue 16,695]

 

 

also trump calling someone “a nice young man” who killed two people:

Just leaving these here 

[ivory almond 16,326]

[Make me your Dream Life 88,720]

I just came back to mention how awful medical insurance agencies can be w/ all the unnecessary departments etc. It honestly just feels like a whole joke of a runaround it can be sometimes w them. 

I'm honestly hoping this causes things to just cut to the chase and expose a lot whatever this entity is atp. 

[fl0r1dakil0s 21,526]

 

we won 

[Lana Del Dufrene 11,259]

14 minutes ago, fl0r1dakil0s said:

 

we lost 

[Dark Angel 203,396]

42 minutes ago, fl0r1dakil0s said:

 

we won 

 

but do people who enter schools and shoot dozens of children dead get charged as terrorists? genuine question

[fl0r1dakil0s 21,526]

38 minutes ago, Dark Angel said:

 

but do people who enter schools and shoot dozens of children dead get charged as terrorists? genuine question

 

school shootings generally aren't politically motivated

[Candy Necklace 8,165]

I’m scared for where this conversation is going 

[Make me your Dream Life 88,720]

kinda off topic but I'm watching Queen Latifah's last holiday movie cus ya know holiday vibes, and then here goes the hospital charging her 340k without anesthesia, and it's fictitious but they're really fucking the queen over. 

edit: ohgod she's dying in the movie and they can't afford to lose her but now she's leaving cus she's only got 3 weeks to live. she's supposed to have a date, but she can't go bc she's supposed to be dead a while after that..