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
He really has talent in choosing all his picks. “Ummm who could be the worst person ever to fill this role?”
Every one of those terrible picks has been a deliberate, careful choice to destabilize the country.
Except the NASA guy. He’s probably pretty good. But his job is to funnel contracts (and therfore billions of dollars) to spacex.
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.
Why should only the military pay for overpriced stuff they don’t need?
Being serious, it seems like he picked his people from a couple of pools.
- Republicans with a lot of social media clout.
- People plausibly accused of being Russian agents.
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.
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!
Luigi didn’t.
This needs to be on a Billboard across the south.
More lanes for more roads, because more lanes will definitely fix gridlock
More of them, but no plan or resources towards maintaining them
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.
Brain damage causes conservatism.
Nah, I probably have some decent brain damage and am solidly progressive.
Same here. My brain injury made me even more radical. If anything has me wondering if I’ve gone paranoid and insane seeing all this coming danger while the rest of the world just goes about their business.
Hmm yeah fair point, I’m in the same boat.
Proposed amendment: enough brain damage causes conservatism.
We better lay off the concussions, got it haha
Life, uh, finds a way…
Lol ah the American Dream.
Not fucking happy about it. Worst possible outcome.
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!
Funny because you can only pursue liberty or pursue happiness when dead. Almost like the afterlife, religion is an instrument of class oppression
What a piece of shit.
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.
And anti-healthcare weirdos don’t have a right to anybody ever respecting them.
Removed by mod
I’m no Trumper, and definitely don’t think Dr Oz is the right person for this job, but this is yet another case of words being taken out of context. Watch the video for yourself.
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.
I don’t care lol. The last screenshot is a movie reference. It wasn’t malicious in the slightest.
Ohhh, so I can say whatever I want as long as it’s a movie reference?
Sigh, you nerds are too much sometimes.
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.
I know the plot of Idiocracy. It is one of my favourite movies. I also love Pulp Fiction, but I sure as fuck am not going to go around talking about dead n_____ storage.
This is how we know you’re a little troll and nothing more.
Sure.
can you quote it so i don’t have to watch it
Burn it to the ground Trump. Make the idiots in America suffer for their choice.
I voted Harris, I’ll die under this you fucking ghoul
Well, if one is destined to die anyways, migjt as well die fighting back as hard, and as viciously as one can.
You first then, don’t volunteer the vulnerable to be your fodder
Even the people who pay for insurance don’t have rights either.
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.
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.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2774561
Maybe Just Accept that you are wrong
What is happening to life expectancy in England?
There have been two turning points in trends in life expectancy in England this century. From 2011, increases in life expectancy slowed after decades of steady improvement, prompting much debate about the causes. Then, in 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic was a more significant turning point, causing a sharp fall in life expectancy, the magnitude of which has not been seen since World War II.
The UK government is heavily captured by American finance and tech. They’re plunging down to our level quickly, despite the NHS (which they state is rapidly defunding and privatizing).
Canada, Germany, and Japan all have the same problems. They’re gutting their golden geese.
Developed nations did figure it out two generations ago, but have since forgotten in the fog of profit chasing and growth for the sake of Big Number Go Up.
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.
Insurance companies should be forced to be nonprofits.
Edit: I mean we should have MfA but at the least hospitals and insurance companies should be nonprofit.
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
Yes this can happen, though it should be noted that a nonprofit health insurer would be regulated differently than a nonprofit research institute that isn’t responsible for providing or reimbursing care.
There can be corruption in governments and government programs too — but still the data says they do a better job at optimizing public health than for profit environments. Not letting perfect be the enemy of good, or better, it’s pretty clear from what I can gather that non profit is better than for profit, and optimized single payer is better than both of those.
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 are non stock issuing; since there are no shares, they can’t have any buybacks.
…I mean we should have MfA…
Yes, and I agree, but I don’t see how Multi factor Authentication enters into this argument…
Haha well we should have 2Factor but I just meant Medicare for All
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.
I’m not suggesting it’s perfect — I’m suggesting it’s better. I’m suggesting optimizing a healthcare system around profit instead of population level health measures shouldn’t be done. I’m not suggesting that making things be non profit or single payer will magically resolve all issues, only that it will be better.
OK, but you can already find health care that is not optimized around profit. Just sign up for BCBS (which is available in most places) and choose a nonprofit medical center as your PCP (which are easy to find since they greatly outnumber for-profit medical centers).
I suspect you may find that this leads to slightly higher premiums. After all, one of the reasons UHC denies so many claims is to keep their premiums low. But in health care, you generally get what you pay for.
Not all BCBS plans are nonprofit actually. And most comparisons I can find for nonprofit medical facilities show lower costs. I haven’t found many studies on pure on profit health insurance vs for profit insurance, but I did find a Harvard paper which compared specifically BCBS plans that converted from non profit to for profit, and here’s an excerpt from that:
Looping back to the theoretical models of NFP and FP health care organizations, the findings are consistent with models in which NFPs prioritize enrollment over profits (equivalently, models in which FPs prioritize profits over enrollment). While theoretically this difference in emphasis might not manifest in higher premiums or lower quality because FPs could be more efficient and find it optimal to maintain substantially the same premiums and quality as NFPs (and still reap higher profits via lower operating costs and/or medical expenses), empirically we do find there is a tradeoff: consumers face higher premiums when large NFPs convert to FP status. Although we do not directly study quality, we find no indirect evidence of quality improvements, as inferred from a model of employee healthplan choice. Moreover, we do find evidence that rivals of converting plans experienced sizeable increases in medical spending following conversion, a result that suggests FPs are likelier than NPs to engage in risk selection practices (e.g., denying or deterring enrollment of individuals with poor health or high health risk, a practice that was legal during the study period).
Here NP is nonprofit, FP is for profit, and NFP is not for profit. Bold emphasis is mine. You can read the study here:
So I would find actually the opposite of what you said, in aggregate, according to this study. Secondly, I still argue for expanded Medicaid and a public option / single payer. I’ve worked with large population datasets from US and internationally — invariably the health outcomes and monitoring, quality of data and followup, are all better for single payer systems.
I like the AOC idea of rapidly decreasing the Medicare age until it hits zero.
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.
They’re right about the God given rights thing though. People really heard God given and thought that meant nobody could take them away.
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.
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
Corporations mainly pay for health insurance. Imagine employee’s reactions being told they were getting cut off. Not going to happen.
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
You have a point I missed!
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.
Interesting idea, but you’d need to get employers on board. Many of whom are publicly traded companies.
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.
29% of people have “very unfavorable” views of Luigi Mangione, compared to only 13% of Brian Thompson. The vast majority believe his murder was not justified.
It sure is neat seeing under which circumstances lemmy regards polls as reliable.
Were you one of the Lemmy users who thought Trump was “universally hated”? If so, you were in for a big surprise there too.
Reading the rest of the survey makes me belive that americans either don’t know what a good insurance company looks like or that they must lie to themselves
A big salty tear.
Surely people will have better access to health care once the system has “crashed”!
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.
This is one thing that really scares me about automation and AI. Without a doubt, they will replace as many of the functions that humans are responsible for with automation and software as is possible. Once they have things up and running, there’s nothing stopping them from doing whatever they want and not caring about the human cost.
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
-
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.
-
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.
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
But that would go against small govt and the GOP cannot let that slide.
I always figured a great deal of those people would move to government work. They already have the expertise.
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.
No doubt. I’m an antiwork radical and think nobody should have a job. But the one thing both political parties and the public seem to agree on is “more jobs” so anyone who says “less jobs” isn’t going to get elected.
And what will you do with all these unemployed people?
Checkmate, guys. We can’t endanger some jobs in order to help everyone. Sorry. Guess we’ll just keep doing this failure of a system that keeps a few rich from the rest of us struggling.
No answer huh? I’ll send a million beggars to your doorstep. Jesus Christ you people are children. Can we actually talk about how this works?!
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!”
I’m 100% on board with Medicare for all and have been since 2016. I’m just trying to recognize logistical and political speedbumps
Lemmy: NO! SIMPLE ONLY!
You’re fighting an uphill battle.
How?
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 don’t disagree with you but I do not believe our government is capable of a decade-long transition to single payer.
Why not? All they have to do is make a single payer option available. Make it functional and accessible, and people will switch to it as their current insurance policies end, or when they move to their next job. The health insurance stock market will likely initially dive, then stabilize into a long downward slope. I’m sure the feds have all kinds of “quantitative-easing” tools they can use to make the process less painful for the ownership class. Whatever pain they do feel would be a necessary consequence of the wrongs they have committed being made right.
Is “the economy” code for how hard you can fuck yourself in the ass with no lube?
“The economy” is code what for every single fucking one of us participates in. This notion that the economy only applies to the rich is sophomoric, and I’m being generous calling it that.
So every other country with universal healthcare just doesn’t exist or?
And that has what to do with what? Cute quip though.
If we remove a million+ jobs, yes, that will fuck shit up. Y’all have an 8th-grade understanding of the world. Upvotes means you’re right, downvotes bad.
As to what OP posted, it’s like Obama said, we’re not starting on a level playing field, we’re starting in a ditch. Other countries started healthcare after WWII, did the right thing, for many reasons I won’t go into here.
Sorry, forgot where I was.
“SIMPLE ANSWER GOOD!”
I don’t know why I’m getting grief for agreeing with OP that eliminating health insurers would crash the economy.
To me this is fine but most people won’t like it which is why single payer won’t ever happen without a revolution.
Is not liking it the same as crashing the economy?
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.
