this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2024
159 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2304 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
top 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Gerudo@lemm.ee 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

How the hell does Sedera (the "health group") they were using even afford to pay anything out?

Correct my math if I'm wrong, but using their data, call it 35000 paying members. The family in question paid about 150 a month. Let's be generous and say 200 per month for each member. That equals 84 million a year of revenue. Taking no other expenses out for running Sedera, that allows each member to only receive 2400 a year in reimbursement. Most of these members are probably families. They also have to pay a deductible, just like regular insurance. So what the hell would Sedera even be able to afford to cover for their "members"?

Religious organizations really know how to grift, don't they.

[–] eccentric@lemm.ee 3 points 1 hour ago

Taking no other expenses out for running Sedera, that allows each member to only receive 2400 a year in reimbursement.

That assumes everyone is filing claims. Insurance companies gamble on you not filing claims.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 97 points 10 hours ago (5 children)

So, it's a plan where everyone pays a small amount on a regular basis, and everyone's health costs get covered by the plan instead of out of pocket.

Man, I wonder if you could somehow scale that up to, say, a national scale? But like, better regulated. Maybe run by the government to ensure everyone has equal access and all conditions are covered.

I wonder what that would look like?

[–] Xanthobilly@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Literally Medicare for all.

[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 52 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, but then non-religious people would have access to it.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 38 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Also people of the "wrong" religions, don't forget about that.

[–] ghen@sh.itjust.works 13 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Earflap@reddthat.com 6 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

noOoOoOoOoOoo theres no such thing as allah they're totally different mine is the only real one reeeeeeeeee REEEEEEEEEEEEEE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE^EEEEEEE^EEEEEEEE^EEEEEEE

[–] NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world 20 points 10 hours ago

Right but then someone who doesn't share your cult might try to get medical care you disagree with or something.

[–] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 9 hours ago

But then the mexicans will just hurt themselves and take all the healthcare instead of stealing our jobs!

[–] ATDA@lemmy.world 31 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

If only there was a way to safely and efficiently spread the financial risk of health care costs across the nation instead of relying on scammers.

OH WELL

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 8 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Unfortunately there are wayyyy too many people trained in this country to lose their minds over it - they don't want "socialized medicine" or "Communism" or "government death panels" and so on.

[–] ATDA@lemmy.world 12 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

It's crazy. I know people that railed against Medicare their entire adult life, needed major surgery as soon as they were on it and thought "wow that was largely painless and I didn't go bankrupt" then CONTUNUE TO THINK MEDICARE FOR ALL IS BAD

it's insanely infuriating.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

I wonder how much of it is because they think POC or immigrants might benefit...

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 66 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

Yeah, can't help but feel nothing for these faith based idiots.

I didn't particularly like US health insurance companies but this is a special type of unregulated conjob. Live by the grift get fucked by the grift.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 46 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

Doesn't change the fact that the people running these sketchy scams should be brought to justice and the whole thing should either be regulated or outlawed.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

I mean I would think so too but legally they haven't done a damn thing wrong and since we're lead by idiots who believe in Christian theocracy that doesn't understand the whole parable of Jesus and the moneylenders, they won't ever be prosecuted or regulated because they think grifting people for money in the name of the Lord is perfectly fine.

[–] eccentric@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

they think grifting people for money in the name of the Lord is perfectly fine.

That pretty much sums up most organized religion.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 12 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Outlawed, definitely. Because fairy tales and ancient superstition are not medicine.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 10 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I think you’re conflating things here — the faith bit is just that those running the scheme are flouting their religion. The scheme itself is designed to look like a cooperative, where everyone shares the costs, without it somehow being labeled gambling or socialism.

The base concept is sound; it’s the window dressing and the actual operation of the scheme that’s twisted.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

My statement still applies

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago

I don't know, maybe ensuring their flock cant afford to donate to political campaigns should be considered a public service.

[–] HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

At one point it appeared cheaper than conventional insurance; dome people might have been chasing that instead of religious kookery.

When I worked for a firm too small to offer insurance, and there was still a mandate with teeth, a broker I visited suggested it because it was ~$250 per month compared with 400 for real insurance.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

When I had my first full time job it didn't come with benefits so I seriously considered one of these programs. In the end it seemed like it was just as risky as avoiding hospitals and going into medical debt when absolutely necessary.

[–] ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 27 points 11 hours ago

From the people who value “every child” and want to regulate your ability to get an abortion….

[–] penquin@lemm.ee 29 points 11 hours ago

Same people who pitch into these scam places, will blow up in your face when you mention Medicare for all

We basically gave Sedera our money and received nothing in return

Yeah, we know, all insurance companies do that already and Sedera is another insurance company but covered with the "god" name. Same bullshit. Fuck this country.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 10 points 10 hours ago

Organized religion is a scam.

[–] shoulderoforion@fedia.io 9 points 10 hours ago

" But to the couple’s shock, they said, Sedera told them they were ineligible, citing a policy near the end of the group’s member guidelines: Within the first year of membership, medical bills for childbirth “are not shareable.”

“We basically gave Sedera our money and received nothing in return,” Kaplan said. “The rug was pulled out from underneath us.”"

I mean ...... yeah, this is a shitty practice, and being completely unregulated (not that actual insurance companies are regulated to the point of choosing patient health and life over profit) needs to be exposed, so others don't fall into this, but if you're signing up for "health insurance" of any kind, and plan to get pregnant with your spouse/partner, you're gonna have to check whether or not you're covered, so I'm not buying they didn't know going in, and that this was a complete surprise, lol. They're claiming they didn't know because it makes a good story, and they want to get paid back (or compensated through sympathetic donations from those that read this story)

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 19 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck... these are scams that must be regulated like the insurance provider they're pretending to be.

[–] shoulderoforion@fedia.io 9 points 11 hours ago

insurance providers are regulated? how? in how many claims they can deny to still make the fat profits?

[–] MarkAB@mastodon.world 8 points 10 hours ago

@GiddyGap There’s a company with a big bird mascot and “only what you need” slogan that uses a similar scam. They use bridge policies originally designed to cover short term gaps in health coverage which do not conform to key ACA requirements (“only what you need”). This makes them cheap and easy to market to people who don’t realize how little coverage they have til their claims are denied. Trump relaxed the limitations on such policies and screwed millions. https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/issue-brief/understanding-short-term-limited-duration-health-insurance/

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 11 hours ago

Yeah dude, because everyone knows, the more homogeneous the risk pool, the cheaper it is for everyone!

Wait.. that's not right...

[–] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 hours ago

Imagine health insurance that doesn't negotiate prices down

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 7 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Their doctor suggested it to them. Fine print says you’re not eligible for claims until after you’ve been paying in for a year.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, I'm not sure why the doctor, who was aware of the pregnancy, either didn't know it wouldn't be covered or just wanted to push the plan and didn't care. I'm guessing they're a member themselves and a member of the religious group as well. Maybe their pregnancy was covered because it had been more than a year since they'd enrolled. That would be the most benign explanation.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 14 minutes ago

Kickbacks would be the less benign explanation.

[–] atempuser23@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

The current and regulated healthcare system in the US doesn't work for a lot of folks. It's not crazy to want to start one with the same idea but less corporate profit taking.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 5 points 8 hours ago

Absolutely. It's just infuriating that there are so many great, efficient, and equitable healthcare systems out there in other countries, but the United States refuses to look at any of it because that's "socialism" or "communism" or whatever propaganda label the politicians want to put on it. Meanwhile, the people suffer, go bankrupt because they got sick or even die when they didn't go get treatment because they were afraid of the bill. Crazy.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 hours ago

Except these assholes are essentially worse than the current system and they are wrapping it around "Christianity" to skirt regulation.

John Oliver of course did a great segment on them.