4 ms·

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 an

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 1y 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 1y ago
  [deleted]
- s1artibartfast 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y ago
        Jefferson put it far better than I ever could: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0348 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0...
        s1artibartfast 1y ago
        I don't think you really believe that edgelord fantasy. Was January 6th far too tame for your liking? How many police and politicians have you lynched? If I have to read "the tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots" one more time I'm going to claw my eyes out. It is a rhetorical copout when faced with genuinely difficult of how to enact reform. Spend a month in Syria, Libya, or Sudan and then tell me that you support civil war, let alone every generation. If internet posturing ever turns into reality, people will be in for a rude awakening.

somenameforme 1y 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 1y ago
[deleted]
s1artibartfast 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y ago
      Jefferson put it far better than I ever could: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0348 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0...
      - s1artibartfast 1y ago
        I don't think you really believe that edgelord fantasy. Was January 6th far too tame for your liking? How many police and politicians have you lynched? If I have to read "the tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots" one more time I'm going to claw my eyes out. It is a rhetorical copout when faced with genuinely difficult of how to enact reform. Spend a month in Syria, Libya, or Sudan and then tell me that you support civil war, let alone every generation. If internet posturing ever turns into reality, people will be in for a rude awakening.