5 ms·

I don't think anyone who has had to pay hospital bills would agree with the hospital lobby's decision to fight this. The article's title makes it give the impre

I don't think anyone who has had to pay hospital bills would agree with the hospital lobby's decision to fight this. The article's title makes it give the impression this is okay because, orange man bad, however regardless of the party pushing for transparency it is something everyone would benefit from (other than the heal care industry/insurance company's profits).

daveslash 7y ago
I thoroughly dislike the bad orange man, but I will save my strongest words for a more appropriate forum. That said, just because you may dislike someone doesn't mean that you have to opposed everything they do. I do agree with this push for price transparency.
- olliej 7y ago
  Right? I always find myself wondering why antitrust isn’t applicable? The hospitals clearly work together to ensure that consumers don’t have accurate or correct pricing information, which has always seemed like it should be classified as anticompetitive behavior.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    I don't think they are working together so much as the system is setup to reward their anti competitive behavior so they all have followed the rewards to the same end.
- TurkishPoptart 7y ago
  I feel the same way about Trump, but as someone who's gone through many years of trying to eke out basic health care and gone through years of minimal insurance, I see this as the government doing the right thing to a giant, bloated, sector. In many ways, health care manifests itself like a racketeering operation in the country, despite the genuine well-wishing of the battalions of nurses, doctors, staff, and assistants who help us every day.
Angostura 7y ago
To be clear, I think in virtually all respects orange man indeed is very bad. This headline suggested to me that orange man may actually be attempting something worthwhile.
- kstrauser 7y ago
  Agreed. While I disagree with him on a great many things, he's right about this one.
  - imglorp 7y ago
    Even an orange man can be right twice a day.
    - mywittyname 7y ago
      You're thinking of a clock. An orange man can be half-right, twice.
      - madengr 7y ago
        What’s with “orange man”. Can’t you people just say Trump? Would you like it if people referred to Obama as “black man”?
        Angostura 7y ago
        "Orange man bad" is a phrase coined by Trump supporters to ridicule the supposedly knee-jerk reactions of those who oppose him.
        imglorp 7y ago
        Also, the orange is obviously an artificial color, so it's his self-image that's he's choosing to broadcast. Remarks about the taste of his chosen appearance are certainly not out of bounds any more than remarks about the gold toilet in the white house.
triceratops 7y ago
The article's title is entirely factual. I didn't see any sentiment of "orange man bad" in there. Unless the words "Trump administration" are themselves somehow critical. Which is weird.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
abootstrapper 7y ago
To be honest, if Obama had proposed this legislation I’d have supported it. But Trump has a history of policies and behaviors that I find reprehensible. It leaves me wondering what I’m missing in this pricing transparency position. Politics aside, I believed Obama always had the American people’s best interests at heart. But Trump has his own interests at heart. Maybe his interests align with the people’s on this issue? I’m not sure.
- bluGill 7y ago
  You can trade Obama and Trump in the above and get an idea of how a lot of people feel. The truth is in the middle, nobody is perfect, nobody is pure evil. But once you choose a side you find it hard to see any good in the other. (I often recognize and fight the problem in myself - with no idea how often I miss it)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
woopwoop 7y ago
In what way is the article title non-neutral? It seems fine to me. For the record, I oppose the Trump administration but support this action by the Trump administration.
- dang 7y ago
  We took out the trigger word.
  - TurkishPoptart 7y ago
    What was it? Thanks.
    - aphextim 7y ago
      Original title that they changed which my original comment was based off of was, 'Hospitals pledge to fight Trump admin price transparency plan in court' Removing the word Trump (trigger word) is what dang was referring to.
      - woopwoop 7y ago
        Oh. I still don't understand how the word "Trump" makes the title non-neutral.
        carapace 7y ago
        It doesn't. The "non-neutrality" is in the minds of the readers, it's "triggered" by the name of the orange man.
Zenst 7y ago
Sadly in many walks of life (more so politics) we see people focus upon the messenger instead of the message. It stems IMHo from that primitaive tribal legacy that we still see play out today, be that sports with the teams or party politics. This is not a trait that all have and many have thru various factors, moved on and with that there are many who focus upon the message and put aside and loyalty or prejudices they may have in how they recieve and approach the message. So with that, like yourself I view this transparency price thing as a good thing as it boils down to ticking the fairness box and being good for the people. Equally, I can see how from business aspect wise it is bad and heck - what business would love to service a customer and not tell them the price only after the work has been dowe without them having any say in it. I'm sure many, however unfair/unscrupulous it may seem. So I see why they will fight it, be it to revoke it, change it or delay it in legal red-tape in the whole process. However, the approach of invoking the tribal support aspect to kill this of and by that, everybody who dislikes the party or the president that made this come about would be a devious tactic and unfair approach. Yet, that does appear to be the one being driven, be that directly or perhaps more so, the biases played out by the reporter/media outlets. But a tribal bias in media outlets is something we are all aware of, some more balanced than other. But imagine if you had those opposing biases in the same location debating things and how that would deteriorate. Well, imagination is not needed as you get exactly that upon social media platforms. So will be interesting and equally, concerning how this whole fight by hospitals plays out. As will the effect if/when it comes to pass. Will it help lower prices or will it drive up health tourisim abroad as you may find it is cheaper to hope on a plane to say Canada and get the blood test done there and work out cheaper. As will be the case with a few procedures using other countries. Also be interesting how people react to this and will we see hoards of protestors fighting for the hospitals to stop this happening based solely upon party political tribal mentalities. I'd like to think not, but we live in such interesting times, you just can't rule that out.

daveslash 7y ago

I thoroughly dislike the bad orange man, but I will save my strongest words for a more appropriate forum. That said, just because you may dislike someone doesn't mean that you have to opposed everything they do. I do agree with this push for price transparency.

olliej 7y ago
Right? I always find myself wondering why antitrust isn’t applicable? The hospitals clearly work together to ensure that consumers don’t have accurate or correct pricing information, which has always seemed like it should be classified as anticompetitive behavior.
- bluGill 7y ago
  I don't think they are working together so much as the system is setup to reward their anti competitive behavior so they all have followed the rewards to the same end.
TurkishPoptart 7y ago
I feel the same way about Trump, but as someone who's gone through many years of trying to eke out basic health care and gone through years of minimal insurance, I see this as the government doing the right thing to a giant, bloated, sector. In many ways, health care manifests itself like a racketeering operation in the country, despite the genuine well-wishing of the battalions of nurses, doctors, staff, and assistants who help us every day.

Angostura 7y ago

To be clear, I think in virtually all respects orange man indeed is very bad. This headline suggested to me that orange man may actually be attempting something worthwhile.

kstrauser 7y ago
Agreed. While I disagree with him on a great many things, he's right about this one.
- imglorp 7y ago
  Even an orange man can be right twice a day.
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    You're thinking of a clock. An orange man can be half-right, twice.
    - madengr 7y ago
      What’s with “orange man”. Can’t you people just say Trump? Would you like it if people referred to Obama as “black man”?
      - Angostura 7y ago
        "Orange man bad" is a phrase coined by Trump supporters to ridicule the supposedly knee-jerk reactions of those who oppose him.
        imglorp 7y ago
        Also, the orange is obviously an artificial color, so it's his self-image that's he's choosing to broadcast. Remarks about the taste of his chosen appearance are certainly not out of bounds any more than remarks about the gold toilet in the white house.

triceratops 7y ago

The article's title is entirely factual. I didn't see any sentiment of "orange man bad" in there. Unless the words "Trump administration" are themselves somehow critical. Which is weird.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

abootstrapper 7y ago

To be honest, if Obama had proposed this legislation I’d have supported it. But Trump has a history of policies and behaviors that I find reprehensible. It leaves me wondering what I’m missing in this pricing transparency position. Politics aside, I believed Obama always had the American people’s best interests at heart. But Trump has his own interests at heart. Maybe his interests align with the people’s on this issue? I’m not sure.

bluGill 7y ago
You can trade Obama and Trump in the above and get an idea of how a lot of people feel. The truth is in the middle, nobody is perfect, nobody is pure evil. But once you choose a side you find it hard to see any good in the other. (I often recognize and fight the problem in myself - with no idea how often I miss it)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

woopwoop 7y ago

In what way is the article title non-neutral? It seems fine to me. For the record, I oppose the Trump administration but support this action by the Trump administration.

dang 7y ago
We took out the trigger word.
- TurkishPoptart 7y ago
  What was it? Thanks.
  - aphextim 7y ago
    Original title that they changed which my original comment was based off of was, 'Hospitals pledge to fight Trump admin price transparency plan in court' Removing the word Trump (trigger word) is what dang was referring to.
    - woopwoop 7y ago
      Oh. I still don't understand how the word "Trump" makes the title non-neutral.
      - carapace 7y ago
        It doesn't. The "non-neutrality" is in the minds of the readers, it's "triggered" by the name of the orange man.

Zenst 7y ago

Sadly in many walks of life (more so politics) we see people focus upon the messenger instead of the message. It stems IMHo from that primitaive tribal legacy that we still see play out today, be that sports with the teams or party politics. This is not a trait that all have and many have thru various factors, moved on and with that there are many who focus upon the message and put aside and loyalty or prejudices they may have in how they recieve and approach the message. So with that, like yourself I view this transparency price thing as a good thing as it boils down to ticking the fairness box and being good for the people. Equally, I can see how from business aspect wise it is bad and heck - what business would love to service a customer and not tell them the price only after the work has been dowe without them having any say in it. I'm sure many, however unfair/unscrupulous it may seem. So I see why they will fight it, be it to revoke it, change it or delay it in legal red-tape in the whole process. However, the approach of invoking the tribal support aspect to kill this of and by that, everybody who dislikes the party or the president that made this come about would be a devious tactic and unfair approach. Yet, that does appear to be the one being driven, be that directly or perhaps more so, the biases played out by the reporter/media outlets. But a tribal bias in media outlets is something we are all aware of, some more balanced than other. But imagine if you had those opposing biases in the same location debating things and how that would deteriorate. Well, imagination is not needed as you get exactly that upon social media platforms. So will be interesting and equally, concerning how this whole fight by hospitals plays out. As will the effect if/when it comes to pass. Will it help lower prices or will it drive up health tourisim abroad as you may find it is cheaper to hope on a plane to say Canada and get the blood test done there and work out cheaper. As will be the case with a few procedures using other countries. Also be interesting how people react to this and will we see hoards of protestors fighting for the hospitals to stop this happening based solely upon party political tribal mentalities. I'd like to think not, but we live in such interesting times, you just can't rule that out.