4 ms·

And why shouldn't it when there is zero negative ramifications for being completely fucking unethical? It's like a video game where the more depraved your thin

by pixl97 10mo ago

And why shouldn't it when there is zero negative ramifications for being completely fucking unethical? It's like a video game where the more depraved your thinking is, the more money you make off it, and the rest of the characters sit around like NPCs and just let it happen. Well, maybe they don't, but when they pull a Super Mario Brothers trick the entire state apparatus is used to track them down and imprison them.

glitchc 10mo ago
Never liked GTA 3 onwards for this reason.
nine_zeros 10mo ago
> And why shouldn't it when there is zero negative ramifications for being completely fucking unethical? This is at the crux of everything in America. There are zero punishments for corporations and executives but there are bureaucratic lock ins for "customers". And the answer is not merely regulation. Why shouldn't I be able to switch health insurance at ANY time? If I am unsatisfied with United Healthcare, I should be able to get anything else right away. Why impose laws on me?
- lotsofpulp 10mo ago
  Health insurers are required to accept all insureds without pricing the insured’s risks. It would increase premiums a lot if people could bounce around, as it would make already difficult to forecast medical loss ratios even more volatile. This really is a problem only the government can solve, by continuously auditing coverage decisions at random, and sufficiently penalizing the companies that understaff at best, and intentionally deny or delay payment at worst. Currently, years might go by until CMS audits the company, and even then, there are no consequences. Try arguing for a higher budget for more $400k doctors and $200k pharmacists in this environment. The current situation is because one company can lower premiums by reducing quality of service, all the other ones have to also, and the buyer rarely buys on anything but price since it’s usually a third party buying it, like an employer.
  - FireBeyond 10mo ago
    > Health insurers are required to accept all insureds without pricing the insured’s risks. It would increase premiums a lot if people could bounce around, as it would make already difficult to forecast medical loss ratios even more volatile. It's almost as if there is nothing insurance-like about US health "insurance" but the name. Picture health insurance models laid on top of your car. Imagine your car gets totaled: Your insurer says, "Hey, we're going to pay out $25,000 for your vehicle. So you have a $1,000 deductible, so that's $24,000, and then your copay for a total loss is $2,000, so that brings us down to $22,000. For total losses, your coinsurance as your contribution for your vehicle coverage is 20%, which is $5,000, so here's a check for $17,000. Buttttt... that's only if you're buying a Hyundai, otherwise the vehicle is out of network and you'll get a check for $8,500 instead."
    - lotsofpulp 10mo ago
      US health insurance premiums are not insurance-like, as they are mostly a tax due to the forced wealth redistribution. US health insurance coverage is very insurance-like, due to the out of pocket maximum. Determining auto insurance coverage is very simple, because fixing/replacing cars is simple. Determining health insurance coverage can't be simple, because fixing bodies is not simple. It's unknown what will and will not fix issues, how to even measure if there is an issue, and what will cause more issues and the cost/benefit of that fix. The people who can fix the issue are a lot more rare and in demand than the people who can fix automobiles. Also, the medicine is patented, and the seller of the medicine wants to be able to charge different prices to different buyers, hence all the games.
      - FireBeyond 10mo ago
        > US health insurance coverage is very insurance-like, due to the out of pocket maximum. Well, other than that whole "out of network" thing... > Determining health insurance coverage can't be simple, because fixing bodies is not simple. It's unknown what will and will not fix issues, how to even measure if there is an issue, and what will cause more issues and the cost/benefit of that fix. Don't disagree - but that doesn't make what we have more "insurance-like".
- Aurornis 10mo ago
  The reason insurance companies have specific sign-up windows and enrollment periods is because the insurance model breaks down if anyone could switch at any time. If someone could get the cheapest plan when they're healthy and then go switch to the best plan as soon as they started getting sick with something, everyone would do exactly that. Insurance companies are required to accept patients regardless of pre-existing conditions, so there has to be something counter-balancing that to prevent people from only getting good insurance when they plan to use it.
  - nine_zeros 10mo ago
    [dead]
ambicapter 10mo ago
> And why shouldn't it when there is zero negative ramifications for being completely fucking unethical? Well, I mean, except for large, systemic ramifications that affect everyone in society, but who's counting?
- ianbutler 10mo ago
  In practice the system is such that 'everyone' doesn't really seem to include the people making a lot of money they are effectively outside the system the rest of us have to deal with.
- browningstreet 10mo ago
  I was chatting with someone about the evils of capitalism. My position was that capitalism was viable as long as culture controlled capitalism. When culture capitulates to capitalism it's a death spiral. When I speak with overseas friends there's often a sense of "of course" or "reasonable" moral lines in the relationship between their culture and where capitalism can't tread. That seems completely gone right now in the US, though it's been heading in that direction for decades. It was mediated by social constructs that have since been completely eradicated. EDIT: Always interesting to watch comment points go up and then come down.
  - macintux 10mo ago
    When U.S. lawmakers admitted that between democracy and capitalism they'd pick capitalism, I knew we were in trouble.
    - DangitBobby 10mo ago
      Are you referring to a specific event here?
      - macintux 10mo ago
        Here's an example: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/capitalism-trumps-democracy-for-trump-fed-pick-stephen-moore.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/capitalism-trumps-democracy-...
malfist 10mo ago
> And why shouldn't it when there is zero negative ramifications for being completely fucking unethical? Why is there a requirement for consequences to act moral? If I have to have a threat of punishment to be good, then I'm not being good and it's all transactional.
- metalcrow 10mo ago
  That's one of the points in favor of capitalism. Most people are not innately good (even "normal" people). The goal of capitalism in theory is to cajole them into acting good by linking helping a customer with monetary benefits.
  - paulryanrogers 10mo ago
    That is what our conservative parents and teachers taught us. In reality capitalism cares only for the owning class. Which isn't to say capitalism is worthless, it can be a powerful force when regulated for the benefit of everyone.
    - metalcrow 10mo ago
      Which is why i say in theory, yes. If there are no regulations the ideal job for a capitalist to take is robbing people!
  - buellerbueller 10mo ago
    Capitalism has no goal beyond the propagation of capitalist entities, just as evolution has no goal beyond the propagation of evolved entities.
    - metalcrow 10mo ago
      The _implementation_ of capitalism has a goal, it should be obvious that's what i meant from the context.
      - 10mo ago
MonkeyClub 10mo ago
> but when they pull a Super Mario Brothers trick I see what you did there :)
shevy-java 10mo ago
You could change the society and laws. Right now this is of course not quite possible, but people can change that. Get rid of the oligarchs in the USA, for instance.

by pixl97 10mo ago

glitchc 10mo ago

Never liked GTA 3 onwards for this reason.

nine_zeros 10mo ago

> And why shouldn't it when there is zero negative ramifications for being completely fucking unethical? This is at the crux of everything in America. There are zero punishments for corporations and executives but there are bureaucratic lock ins for "customers". And the answer is not merely regulation. Why shouldn't I be able to switch health insurance at ANY time? If I am unsatisfied with United Healthcare, I should be able to get anything else right away. Why impose laws on me?

lotsofpulp 10mo ago
Health insurers are required to accept all insureds without pricing the insured’s risks. It would increase premiums a lot if people could bounce around, as it would make already difficult to forecast medical loss ratios even more volatile. This really is a problem only the government can solve, by continuously auditing coverage decisions at random, and sufficiently penalizing the companies that understaff at best, and intentionally deny or delay payment at worst. Currently, years might go by until CMS audits the company, and even then, there are no consequences. Try arguing for a higher budget for more $400k doctors and $200k pharmacists in this environment. The current situation is because one company can lower premiums by reducing quality of service, all the other ones have to also, and the buyer rarely buys on anything but price since it’s usually a third party buying it, like an employer.
- FireBeyond 10mo ago
  > Health insurers are required to accept all insureds without pricing the insured’s risks. It would increase premiums a lot if people could bounce around, as it would make already difficult to forecast medical loss ratios even more volatile. It's almost as if there is nothing insurance-like about US health "insurance" but the name. Picture health insurance models laid on top of your car. Imagine your car gets totaled: Your insurer says, "Hey, we're going to pay out $25,000 for your vehicle. So you have a $1,000 deductible, so that's $24,000, and then your copay for a total loss is $2,000, so that brings us down to $22,000. For total losses, your coinsurance as your contribution for your vehicle coverage is 20%, which is $5,000, so here's a check for $17,000. Buttttt... that's only if you're buying a Hyundai, otherwise the vehicle is out of network and you'll get a check for $8,500 instead."
  - lotsofpulp 10mo ago
    US health insurance premiums are not insurance-like, as they are mostly a tax due to the forced wealth redistribution. US health insurance coverage is very insurance-like, due to the out of pocket maximum. Determining auto insurance coverage is very simple, because fixing/replacing cars is simple. Determining health insurance coverage can't be simple, because fixing bodies is not simple. It's unknown what will and will not fix issues, how to even measure if there is an issue, and what will cause more issues and the cost/benefit of that fix. The people who can fix the issue are a lot more rare and in demand than the people who can fix automobiles. Also, the medicine is patented, and the seller of the medicine wants to be able to charge different prices to different buyers, hence all the games.
    - FireBeyond 10mo ago
      > US health insurance coverage is very insurance-like, due to the out of pocket maximum. Well, other than that whole "out of network" thing... > Determining health insurance coverage can't be simple, because fixing bodies is not simple. It's unknown what will and will not fix issues, how to even measure if there is an issue, and what will cause more issues and the cost/benefit of that fix. Don't disagree - but that doesn't make what we have more "insurance-like".
Aurornis 10mo ago
The reason insurance companies have specific sign-up windows and enrollment periods is because the insurance model breaks down if anyone could switch at any time. If someone could get the cheapest plan when they're healthy and then go switch to the best plan as soon as they started getting sick with something, everyone would do exactly that. Insurance companies are required to accept patients regardless of pre-existing conditions, so there has to be something counter-balancing that to prevent people from only getting good insurance when they plan to use it.
- nine_zeros 10mo ago
  [dead]

ambicapter 10mo ago

> And why shouldn't it when there is zero negative ramifications for being completely fucking unethical? Well, I mean, except for large, systemic ramifications that affect everyone in society, but who's counting?

ianbutler 10mo ago
In practice the system is such that 'everyone' doesn't really seem to include the people making a lot of money they are effectively outside the system the rest of us have to deal with.
browningstreet 10mo ago
I was chatting with someone about the evils of capitalism. My position was that capitalism was viable as long as culture controlled capitalism. When culture capitulates to capitalism it's a death spiral. When I speak with overseas friends there's often a sense of "of course" or "reasonable" moral lines in the relationship between their culture and where capitalism can't tread. That seems completely gone right now in the US, though it's been heading in that direction for decades. It was mediated by social constructs that have since been completely eradicated. EDIT: Always interesting to watch comment points go up and then come down.
- macintux 10mo ago
  When U.S. lawmakers admitted that between democracy and capitalism they'd pick capitalism, I knew we were in trouble.
  - DangitBobby 10mo ago
    Are you referring to a specific event here?
    - macintux 10mo ago
      Here's an example: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/capitalism-trumps-democracy-for-trump-fed-pick-stephen-moore.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/18/capitalism-trumps-democracy-...

malfist 10mo ago

> And why shouldn't it when there is zero negative ramifications for being completely fucking unethical? Why is there a requirement for consequences to act moral? If I have to have a threat of punishment to be good, then I'm not being good and it's all transactional.

metalcrow 10mo ago
That's one of the points in favor of capitalism. Most people are not innately good (even "normal" people). The goal of capitalism in theory is to cajole them into acting good by linking helping a customer with monetary benefits.
- paulryanrogers 10mo ago
  That is what our conservative parents and teachers taught us. In reality capitalism cares only for the owning class. Which isn't to say capitalism is worthless, it can be a powerful force when regulated for the benefit of everyone.
  - metalcrow 10mo ago
    Which is why i say in theory, yes. If there are no regulations the ideal job for a capitalist to take is robbing people!
- buellerbueller 10mo ago
  Capitalism has no goal beyond the propagation of capitalist entities, just as evolution has no goal beyond the propagation of evolved entities.
  - metalcrow 10mo ago
    The _implementation_ of capitalism has a goal, it should be obvious that's what i meant from the context.
    - 10mo ago

MonkeyClub 10mo ago

> but when they pull a Super Mario Brothers trick I see what you did there :)

shevy-java 10mo ago

You could change the society and laws. Right now this is of course not quite possible, but people can change that. Get rid of the oligarchs in the USA, for instance.