this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2025
291 points (99.7% liked)

politics

26576 readers
569 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If private insurance companies are lobbying to prevent Medicare for All because they'd lose their business, then make them the claims processors. Like, the government pays the bill, but the carrier process the claim as a contractor to the government. That way they can still be publicly trades and still keep their profit margin, and people still get guaranteed healthcare. They'd even be able to keep what they've killed in previous profit, and they'd not have to be the source of funds for actual claims.

Since there are a few companies, maybe we could even use a regional distribution of the populace for who has which card on their wallet. So maybe the east coast has Blue Cross Blue Shield, the west coast has Aetna, and the central states have Kaiser?

This way everyone wins: heal insurance keeps in business and still makes money; the people have healthcare; and the government improves the lives of its population, has fewer bankruptcies, and can tax the revenue of its contactors like they do with their current contractors.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It doesn't cut the bottom line if they no longer have to pay the obligation pursuant to the terms of the contract, and instead merely contract as a claims processor.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

If it's a publicly traded company, then they are obligated to pursue shareholder value above all else. If total revenue go down, shareholder value go down. They would see some pretty marginal gains because they'd still be able to lay off most employees, but they'd practically be cutting off both of their arms.

They make their money by absolutely draining every working class American for every dollar they can afford. Most claims are handled automatically by computer, we do not need them to do that for us. The 5% of claims or so that are not automatically handled are given over to review by a pretty small group of people, we would not need 3 insurance companies to do that work nationwide.

What you're proposing is a form of universal healthcare where Americans continue to spend more than every other developed nation for similar outcomes as to what we already have.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What you’re proposing is a form of universal healthcare where Americans continue to spend more than every other developed nation for similar outcomes.

Yes, our system is fucked up in 2 ways: (1) middlemen deny care b/c the care affects the bottom line, and (2) our care is expensive.

I'm thinking we solve problem 1 now by de-linking the care provided with the profit motive to deny care. But, if we do that unilaterally, we'll run into a wall of cash that opposes that change. We might still spend more as a society, but at least people won't be dying in the streets. The future people can work on getting the price down tomorrow. But, today? Give universal health-insurance by any means.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

Kicking the can got us the ACA, it's been almost entirely gutted in under 15 years.

If we leave them in place, on the presumption that there's profit motive for them to remain, then we leave them with enough cash to claw back everything they lost, and they'd keep their cushy government contracts.

Again, there is no universe in which that wall of cash doesn't oppose this anyway. Don't negotiate with terrorists.