this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
604 points (99.0% liked)

News

28227 readers
4977 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

"Wildcards, sometimes you need to see people and have no idea what you will pay in the end since sometimes they will do work or use something that isn’t fully covered so you then get a bill a month later telling you insurance only covered this you owe the difference. It’s up to you to figure out if that’s correct or not then go down the path of fighting it."

This alone would get my hackles up, let alone paying $600+/month for uncertain coverage of treatments and prescriptions. Moreso, it would rub me the wrong way to have someone in my life who was unable to pay in and left up the creek with no paddle. The bit about a tax penalty for absence of coverage is a bit much, does the government really need to kick someone when they're down? Best of luck to you, it sounds as though you have it well in hand, but I don't envy you the task.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The bit about a tax penalty for absence of coverage is a bit much, does the government really need to kick someone when they’re down?

This was struck down in court years ago.

The “stick” was to encourage people to get coverage ahead of time or face the penalty. If they decided not to, the extra tax could help cover unpaid ER visits where they must be treated whether or not they can pay.

The “carrot” At the same time was reduced price insurance based on your income and expanded Medicaid coverage for people who couldn’t afford anything. This was paid for by the federal government but Medicaid is administered by the state: several Repugnancan states refused the money because their politicians were so set against providing free medical care

After the tax “stick” was struck down, coverage dropped without that penalty, and states where they refused the money left millions of lesser paid people without coverage . So yeah, we needed it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'll be damned, it was almost addressed by legislation in a similar way as car insurance then, if I'm understanding the broad strokes (penalty for non possession)? That being the case, was the penalty via taxes not routed in much the same way as simply paying taxes overall, except only as a means to cover some of the cost for those least able to afford it?

People are generally pissed about paying sales taxes which achieve much the same outcome minus the carrot-stick approach and penalties, how much more or less pissed were Americans about getting 'nudged' in the right direction with income tax penalties by comparison?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I’m not sure about the routing

It’s hard to tell how pissed off people were about the tax penalty trying to nudge them in the right direction.

  • Clearly some people think they never need medical care, or that they can make that decision in the short term to save some much needed money. Statistics show they are very wrong, but everyone thinks they’re above average.
  • Clearly some people were vocal about complaining
  • but also very clearly a lot of it was partisanship, politicians stoking outrage to manipulate voters

I honestly don’t know how common it really was for people to be upset vs how common it was political shenanigans. As always, those shenanigans misrepresent and confuse the truth, so were those complainers even aware of what they’re complaining?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

It’s hard to tell how pissed off people were about the tax penalty trying to nudge them in the right direction.

  • but also very clearly a lot of it was partisanship, politicians stoking outrage to manipulate voters

Ah, par for the course then. There's a lot of that going around on a pretty regular basis unfortunately.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I hope you realize what he is talking about every single American deals with and I think you missed the part where he is fortunate and this is literally the best case scenario (outside of being rich enough to not give af.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I do, yes. I've read reams and reams of accounts, comments, and articles about the hardships experienced under the current healthcare model in America over the past few decades. The exact costing metric was never addressed though, which is why I asked about it specifically. The whole enterprise of for-profit medicine as carried out under the current insurance model is criminal and immoral by any measure.