4 ms·

This isn't the issue. You could get easily get the overwhelming majority of society to agree 'let's criminalize unjustified denials with criminal penalties for

This isn't the issue. You could get easily get the overwhelming majority of society to agree 'let's criminalize unjustified denials with criminal penalties for the executives of healthcare companies who violate such' and it's simply not going to happen. A handful of corporations' "lobbying" easily trumps the opinion of society. And getting people elected is no different. Fewer and fewer people identify as either republican or democrat (with independents being the largest 'party' by far), yet lo and behold like 99.9% of politicians at all levels, high and low, are republican or democrat, with basically no independent representation because the system makes it unreasonably difficult to select an alternative. This is further confounded by an utterly worthless media system that further works to entrench the political establishment, and much more.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I dont think it is that easy to define "unjustified denials". People might agree on a vibe, but not detail. What would a bill look like? Regarding the party and representational system, I agree there is a lot of dysfunction. Same problem. Nobody can agree on alternatives. Even ranked choice, which I think is the tiniest step in the right direction is highly controversial. Ideas like expanding the house to 30,000 representatives [1], seem like a fantasy. People hate change more than the status quo. Regarding the media environment, the consumer is the problem. As long as people prefer and seek out garbage, there is no possible solution. [1] https://thirty-thousand.org/ https://thirty-thousand.org/
- somenameforme 2y ago
  An unjustified denial is obviously a denial that should not have been denied by the terms of your agreement with the insurance company. And we should also add delays and other anti-payment 'strategies' as criminal offenses as well. And as such behaviors would now be criminal in nature, exact offenses would determined by a jury of our peers. It's obviously not people hating change. People want these things, and many others to change. It's a completely broken political system that is happy to change, but only when it benefits corporations or political, especially geopolitical, interests. Ranked choice won't do anything. Australia has one of the most dysfunctional democracies in the world, and they have both universal voting, obviously 'Australian voting', and even a proportionally elected Senate.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Again, do you think going out and shooting anyone that pisses you off will fix this system? Politicians can be voted out of office. The process is simple and foolproof. The problem is people are divided and can't agree. If every voter next election had your claim denial law as their top priority, they could replace Congress entirely. Instead, they will fight over the same issues.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      No they couldn't. Getting ballot access is a huge ordeal, and then the media does an excellent job of divide and conquer by not even focusing on the issues, but instead focusing on hate, fear, misrepresentations, and so forth. Make people hate and fear 'the other side' enough and they won't dare "waste" their vote and will happily vote for somebody they don't even like, but dislike less than the alternative. And obviously you're straw manning things. The reason people screw over other people is because they expect there will be no consequences. Whether this is some thug mugging a guy for $20 on the street corner, or a guy in a suit developing ever more novel strategies to ultimately refuse healthcare to people - it's the exact same issue. When there are consequences, the entire calculus changes.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        You are externalizing all of the problems of the electorate and treating them as if they have no agency. As if every other part of the system is a clever actors, and voters are all mindless dolls with no choice in how they vote, what they read, or what they watch. I agree consequences are a powerful incentive. If you reject updating the law, where does that leave you? What exactly is your position? Should I go out and shoot people I disagree with or not? Are you going out and shooting people?
        somenameforme 2y ago

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I dont think it is that easy to define "unjustified denials". People might agree on a vibe, but not detail. What would a bill look like? Regarding the party and representational system, I agree there is a lot of dysfunction. Same problem. Nobody can agree on alternatives. Even ranked choice, which I think is the tiniest step in the right direction is highly controversial. Ideas like expanding the house to 30,000 representatives [1], seem like a fantasy. People hate change more than the status quo. Regarding the media environment, the consumer is the problem. As long as people prefer and seek out garbage, there is no possible solution. [1] https://thirty-thousand.org/ https://thirty-thousand.org/

somenameforme 2y ago
An unjustified denial is obviously a denial that should not have been denied by the terms of your agreement with the insurance company. And we should also add delays and other anti-payment 'strategies' as criminal offenses as well. And as such behaviors would now be criminal in nature, exact offenses would determined by a jury of our peers. It's obviously not people hating change. People want these things, and many others to change. It's a completely broken political system that is happy to change, but only when it benefits corporations or political, especially geopolitical, interests. Ranked choice won't do anything. Australia has one of the most dysfunctional democracies in the world, and they have both universal voting, obviously 'Australian voting', and even a proportionally elected Senate.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Again, do you think going out and shooting anyone that pisses you off will fix this system? Politicians can be voted out of office. The process is simple and foolproof. The problem is people are divided and can't agree. If every voter next election had your claim denial law as their top priority, they could replace Congress entirely. Instead, they will fight over the same issues.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    No they couldn't. Getting ballot access is a huge ordeal, and then the media does an excellent job of divide and conquer by not even focusing on the issues, but instead focusing on hate, fear, misrepresentations, and so forth. Make people hate and fear 'the other side' enough and they won't dare "waste" their vote and will happily vote for somebody they don't even like, but dislike less than the alternative. And obviously you're straw manning things. The reason people screw over other people is because they expect there will be no consequences. Whether this is some thug mugging a guy for $20 on the street corner, or a guy in a suit developing ever more novel strategies to ultimately refuse healthcare to people - it's the exact same issue. When there are consequences, the entire calculus changes.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      You are externalizing all of the problems of the electorate and treating them as if they have no agency. As if every other part of the system is a clever actors, and voters are all mindless dolls with no choice in how they vote, what they read, or what they watch. I agree consequences are a powerful incentive. If you reject updating the law, where does that leave you? What exactly is your position? Should I go out and shoot people I disagree with or not? Are you going out and shooting people?
      - somenameforme 2y ago