• GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    192
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Private health insurance is the biggest fucking scam ever. The private insurance companies benefit by getting the aggregate healthiest population into their plans (working adults). The most likely to be expensive people, i.e. old people (on medicare) or poor people (on medicaid, or not even on an insurance plan) are on government, tax payer insurance plans. There is literally no reason except for corporate profiteering that Medicare should not be expanded to cover all people.

    Also all those conversations, especially in the 2020 election period, were totally bullshit. You say something like M4A will cost 44 trillion dollars or whatever, which sounds like an insane amount of money. What is often left out of the discussion is that estimated cost was 1) over 10 years and 2) has to be weighed against the current costs we already pay for insurance. So the deal was very simple: the overall costs would go down because the overall spending would be less, and at the same time millions of people without coverage would be covered, and at the same time you don’t have to contemplate stupid bullshit like in network, out of network providers. Or ever again talk to your insurance about why something is or isn’t covered. Boils my blood when I think too much about this.

    Not even gonna weigh in on things like how medicare can’t negotiate prescription drug prices (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/23/us/politics/medicare-drug-price-negotiations-lawsuits.html), or how dental, vision, and hearing are treated separately from general healthcare, or how med school is prohibitively expensive, or how the residents after med school are overworked because the guy who institutionalize that practice was literally a cokehead. Those are all just bonus topics. The point is we are getting fleeced.

    • PlanetOfOrd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Probably gonna anger both sides here, but I see both private insurance and single-payer healthcare as equally-evil scams. Why not focus on driving down costs of healthcare (i.e. EVERYTHING) so that you throw a couple bucks at the receptionist to cover your surgery then check to see if you have enough for a post-surgery soda?

      • GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        One of the objectives of single-payer is to drive down the costs of healthcare by eliminating the overhead of an insurance bureaucracy. There are other aspects that can be considered like nationalizing hospitals to eliminate private run, for-profit hospitals. People like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCA_Healthcare are just as responsible for the high per-capita costs of healthcare we pay as are the insurance companies. And I agree with you, they shouldn’t be getting a guaranteed government handout.

  • MiDaBa@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    168
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    The stock market and publicly traded companies. The idea that a business that is making consistent profits isn’t good unless those profits are increased each quarter is asinine. This system of shortsighted hyper focus on short term quarterly growth for the sake of growth is the cause of so much pain and suffering in the world. Even companies with amazing financials will work to push workers compensation down, cut corners and exploit loopholes to make sure their profits are always growing. Consistent large profits aren’t good enough.

    • AssholeDestroyer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Instapot. Instapot made too good of a product, most people buy one and its good for years. That’s good for consumers but terrible for investors. The company that bought them out and took them public saddled them with a ton of debt from other sectors and now they’re bankrupt.

      • droans@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Diamond Sports is suing Sinclair for doing the same, minus the “good product” part.

        Sinclair bought up the Fox RSNs a few years back, renaming the company as Diamond Sports and the channels as Bally Sports. Not too long afterwards, they went bankrupt. Diamond is claiming that Sinclair has saddled them with massive debts and extraordinarily high management fees. Sinclair also kept the funds from the sponsorship agreement with Bally.

        https://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-sinclair-broadcast-sued-by-diamond-sports-20230722-ndvdj6btfreovbsyo7gk7eeony-story.html

        The lawsuit accuses Sinclair of receiving about $1.5 billion as a result of alleged misconduct, including fraudulent transfers of assets, unlawful distributions and payments, breaches of contracts, unjust enrichment and breaches of fiduciary duties.

        “Diamond Sports Group is seeking to vindicate its rights and protect the value of the Diamond bankruptcy estate, including by recovering value from Sinclair Broadcast Group that was improperly transferred from Diamond prior to its filing for bankruptcy in March 2023,” a spokesperson for Diamond said in a statement.

      • hglman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A bad quarter isn’t what this is about. It’s about the idea that constant percentage growth is good or realistic. Any stock with flat growth over a decade will not be a good long-term investment. Your comment proves the point here.

    • SouthernCross@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you invest in the stock market and expect companies to be making large profits all the time then you’re going to be very disappointed. That’s not how it works. There are financial reports, market regulators, analysts. History tells us that awful companies with shady practices would always get caught in the end, no matter how big they are.

      Everyone should invest, but investors should always do their research.

      • severien@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is not about small-time regular Joe investors, but about large institutional ones, who do exert pressure on companies to deliver strong profits and/or growth.

    • original_ish_name@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Found the atheist

      Sure a lot of people use religion as a business but just because some people take advantage of it doesn’t make it a cult. The real scammers are the people who take adcantage of it and those people deserve the death penalty

      • moistclump@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think it’s the opposite of what you’re saying (mostly bad, with some good apples), and in my years and years in and around all sorts of church’s it’s been the opposite - the good ones stand out, can get persecuted for it, and have an uphill battle ahead of them.

        The system is set up in a way that the Leadership and participants would have to actively push against it in order to not be exercising power over others inappropriately. The Bible makes the promises: invest 10% of your income to the church, listen to the men in charge, obey your husband.

      • BilboBargains@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        True but I feel that the Brits are quite advanced in this area. They’ve got a fantastic public relations department that works tirelessly to maintain a sense of endearment to a family that has all the charisma of a house brick. Not everyone can cut funding for healthcare and simultaneously increase it for a class of super wealthy privileged idiots while keeping the tiny flags waving.

      • xylltch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem is that we keep jumping up to new major versions where of course there’s all kinds of regressions. We really just need to revert to Web 2.7.3 rev4, now that was a polished release.

  • MooseBoys@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the third post I’ve seen on Lemmy recently where people seem to overwhelmingly think the word “scam” just means “something I don’t like”. To be a scam, something needs to be dishonest in its representation, usually either by falsifying the true cost to the buyer, or lying about what is being provided in return.

    • 200ok@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      They are exceptionally shitty for cash accounts since they are absolutely using the money for their own profit.

      If everyone took out all their liquid cash, the bank would crash (see; recent events.)

    • Whatsit_Tooya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Was coming here specifically to say credit scores. Oh what’s that you paid off your student loans? Here have a big credit hit as a treat. Oh you’re using your credit? Here have a credit hit even tho you’ve never missed a payment. How dare you use the credit you have??

      • dingus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Why would paying off your student loans give you a credit hit?

        Edit: lol who is downvoting this I legitimately didn’t know the answer

        • yawn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Credit scores are in part based on the oldest line of available credit, which for most people are their student loans. Pay those off, your oldest line of credit becomes something more recent, and your score goes down as a result

        • Whatsit_Tooya@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s more the case that if you use more than 20% it is seen as negative. 0-10% is excellent, 10-20% is good, and it gets worse from there. Every year I request a credit increase despite my spending staying the same simply because it makes my utilization go down. But it’s dumb. I don’t need the extra credit. I’ll never use it. But have to have it to max my score.

      • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sports are a scam because it distracts people from discussing politics yet voting and democracy is a scam? Not a very compelling argument.

        • Xbeam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sports is a very broad term. I am aware of MLBs antitrust exemption. However, that is a unique situation that does not apply across all sports. That’s why we have seperte leagues like the NFL and XFL. My kids playing little leugue are not affected by this at all.

          As for the 90% of males comment, this is rediculous. It is very possible to both follow and discuss politics while also have other interests. It’s not an either or situation. There is nothing wrong with having distractions you enjoy.

          I agree that pro sports are subject to massive corruption. But that doesn’t make them a scam.

        • very_well_lost@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’re basically responsible for 90% of males simply refusing to discuss important issues in politics.

          Gonna need you to cite some sources on that one.

        • williams_482@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Au contrarie; sports are a fantastic way to get socioeconomic issues (like labor rights) front and center on the minds of people who wouldn’t necessarily be thinking of them the same way. And they create opportunities for people to educate themselves in other areas as well. Not every sports fan is the willfully ignorant meathead you describe, nor do willfully ignorant meatheads exist because of sports.

          MLB is not only a state sponsored monopoly, but like every other American sports league a blatant cartel which is constantly squabbling with its own employees over revenue shares (at the expense of the on-field product) and lying about how much money they actually make. Same thing as most other business owners, but people are a lot more willing to listen to the perspective of, say, Shoehi Ohtani than a random McDonald’s employee. I can tell you that I am personally much more clued in on these sorts of societal problems as a result of sportswriters discussing labor issues, on top of being far more statistically savvy and generally more sceptical of oversimplified narratives than I would be if I had never gained an interest in baseball. Nor would I have anywhere near my current understanding of global politics without global football (soccer) creating both a mechanism and incentive for learning about them.

          But that’s not even the point: sports are not a “scam”. Sports exist first and foremost because for many people, watching elite athletes play a game is fun. That is the intrinsic value of professional sports, and nothing about that is inherently scammy. Full stop.

    • s20@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with everything but voting. Not because we ever have great options, but because sometimes there are terrifyingly bad ones, and while option A might not be at all good, option B is so much worse.

      That’s why it’s called “the lesser of two evils.”

      • BilboBallbins@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If we want better options we can vote for third party candidates. I have no faith in the system, and a third party candidate will almost never win. But if enough people vote for them it gets them more recognition, which could eventually shift the narrative. Gary Johnson got over 3% of the vote in 2016, and Ross Perot got as high as 19% in the 90s.

        • s20@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay. But if the people you vote for can only muster 3% of the vote, how does that help?

          I get it in local elections, up to and including State legislature, gubernatorial races, and maybe Congress if they can get a good campaign going. That all makes sense because even if they don’t win they get enough attention to attract local media and push discussion among others.

          But Senators? The President? Ross Perot was an extreme outlier. The last time a 3rd party presidential candidate got more than 50 electoral votes was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive. In the last century, the highest total electoral votes for a 3rd part went to George Wallace in 1968 running as an American Independent. He got 46 out of 538. Rounding up, that’s 9%.

          Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.

          So I’m asking: how does it help. If it helps, I’ll try. But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way. So please, for the love of sanity, convince me.

          • BilboBallbins@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way.

            I feel this way too. But if we as individuals recognize that the system is going to screw us no matter who is elected, then if we vote it might as well be out of principle. Have you ever shared a fact or opinion or taught someone something, and later noticed that it changed their behavior in some small way? Someone on the internet might see Perot’s (or more relevant, Gary Johnson’s since it happened only a few years ago) vote count on Wikipedia and it could lead them down a rabbit hole that ultimately gets them motivated to take initiative in the local community. So yeah, I feel you, at the federal level it’s hopeless. I think the real change will happen within families, friends, and local communities.

            Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.

            I’ll guess ending the Vietnam war…

            • s20@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation.

              Which brings me back to my point. If:

              • My vote isn’t going to help further discourse, and …
              • Odds are good that even a popular 3rd party option isn’t going to be remembered all that well, and…
              • If nobody represents my ideas all that well anyway, then…

              what’s my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn’t have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too.

              And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change.

              So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn’t specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn’t a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one.

              That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that’s not on me.

              So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I’ll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit.

              But that’s what I was already doing.

              Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition.

              • BilboBallbins@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that’s respectable. Since we can’t do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It’s a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve.

                The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn’t give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn’t follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative.

                Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I’m not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process.

                • s20@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy?

                  I don’t think it’s at all unrelated.

                  Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed.

                  It is. That’s why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can’t support the party’s platform anymore, for instance). Also, it’s got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it’s just a vocal few, but it skeeves me.

                  Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I’m not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process

                  I’m not confident either, but the free market hasn’t done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we’ve had success with regulation.

        • s20@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t seem to know what “lesser of two evils” means.

          It doesn’t mean “that guy’s bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!”

          It means “no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube.”

          I can’t do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can’t see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I’m to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I’m fucked no matter who I pick, so I’m sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor.

          I’m sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors.

          So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical.

          Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I’m a gullible moron instead.

            • s20@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ugh. I’m not pro establishment. People who are pro establishment think it works. People who are pro establishment have hope

              Where the fuck did you get that out of what I wrote? Do I sound hopeful? Or like I think the system in any way works?

              Or is that just your canned response when someone disagrees with you and you can’t think of a decent comeback?

              Is that what you kids call a “cope”? It sounds like a “cope”. My generation just calls it “What the fuck are you even talking about?”

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It depends on the voting system. In the US there are two parties, that’s just one party away from being like China. Scam is thinking US is fully democratic when you can only vote for two parties or throw the vote away.

    • j891319@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the UK university is still wayyyy cheaper than US, but local students pay ~$10,000 a year max due to regulation, but international students have no protection and typically pay ~$30,000

      • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That makes perfect sense though. The UK government subsidizes/funds the universities, and in turn domestic students are more likely to have higher paying jobs and pay more tax. Foreign students are more likely to leave after graduating, so no tax for the government once they go.

        Australia has a similar system.

    • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Is it normalized? I very rarely hear anyone taking homeopathic medicine or advocating for it. But I live in Norway, so maybe this is a thing elsewhere?

      • bbigras@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I agree that I never ear anyone I know tell me they use it, but they are sold in every drug store here in Canada so people must buy them, otherwise they would be bankrupt.

        Maybe there’s better examples. Maybe glasses. Like 500$ for plastic. More people are buying online though these days.

      • kartonrealista@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Have you ever seen stuff like Occillococcinum or anything made by company Boiron? They don’t advertise it as homeopathy, so even if you saw a homeopathic sugar pill you wouldn’t necessarily know. That’s a part of the scam

        • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol, not everyone lives in your random ass location that forbids private sales. It’s very possible to do where I live, but it’s one of those things that it’s good to have professionals handle in most cases in my opinion.

        • Whatsupdude@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Go get your real estate license. It’s not hard especially if you’re going to be complaining about the 6%

          • WetBeardHairs@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In my state it requires a six week class, passing a test, then working under a licensed broker for 6 months. I considered it.