> 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?
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.
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.
> 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."
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.
> 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".
I mean for most auto and home insurers, the "negotiated price" is a pretty loose thing. My insurer might ask for a quote from someone in their "preferred network" but I can get a quote from anyone I want to do the work, and if it's within x% of the preferred quote, it's automatically approved, otherwise someone from the insurer calls them and asks about the different pricing, and I've generally got that approval within 24-48 hours. (Which has also worked in my favor - with an auto glass claim, their repairer was insistent that third party glass would work fine, despite the HUD, but the other was able to demonstrate to the insurer that OEM glass was required).
Mostly this all boils down to "the healthcare industry in the US needs to be comprehensively revamped in any one of several different ways or methodologies, but likely won't be".
> but I can get a quote from anyone I want to do the work, and if it's within x% of the preferred quote, it's automatically approved,
It would be the same in healthcare if quotes were for 4 and low 5 figures with no future costs.
Not only does healthcare easily reach into the 5, 6, and 7 figures, but the health insurance company is also on the hook for myriad known and unknown issues caused by the initial costs.
Their bet is that they will not follow the law, nothing will be done about it, and Americans will be ok with it.
So far, that has been the case. The constitution has become meaningless thanks to maga, and you're better off recognizing that America no longer exists the way you thought about the country.
It’s absurd that there is no actual way to hold the presidency accountable. No way to arrest them for violating the law? No way to arrest them for ignoring court orders? No way to arrest them for detaining people for months and then letting them go and dropping all charges? What’s the point of such a childishly designed political system?
> but it's still capital. It should be spent on meeting people's basic human needs, not GPU power.
What you have just described is people wanting investment in common society - you see the return on this investment but ultra-capitalistic individuals don't see any returns on this investment because it doesn't benefit them.
In other words, you just asked for higher taxes on the rich that your elected officials could use for your desired investment. And the rich don't want that which is why they spend on lobbying.
> The twentieth century spent a lot of intellectual and moral effort glorifying labour because economies needed people to show up every day. The twenty-first century is starting to build machines and systems that do not need quite as many of us.
And herein lies the real, consitent, and real anxiety among the youth - leading to lower birth rates. I myself feel the same.
And then I look at the elected corrupt pedophiles, and there is just no hope.
What strikes me most with this quote is that (consistent) labour is very much a defining, if not the defining parameter in all our cultures and the author highlights this later on with data from China etc. I feel we might have a problem with the emphasis on that value in the future. If we think automation through to it's extreme and accept a growing world population and worsening climate effects, we've got to shift cultural values accordingly or face severe societal upheavals. I don't have a point here, just gave me stuff to think about.
Hmm, I'm not sure about the link to lower birth rates. Birth rates have been falling in e.g. Western and Northern Europe for a long time, despite strong social safety nets.
While I think the link between birth rates declining and automation does make sense, it will take quite sometime for this to verifiable as this is a somewhat recent anxiety. The reason for the trend that we have seem over the last decades seem to mostly stem from lower childhood mortality rates, women having access to the job market, and perhaps to a lesser extent climate anxiety.
> By 2026, Nvidia was the beneficiary of a de facto Ponzi scheme. Investors were excited about AI. One reason they were excited was Nvidia's revenue growth. So they invested in new AI startups and cloud hyperscalers. The startups and hyperscalers then used the money to buy Nvidia chips. Which caused yet more revenue growth for Nvidia, and further convinced investors AI was worth investing in.
Fixed this for anyone still not processing the bubble.
While I don't 100% agree with his policies, I cannot be more excited for someone completely opposite of the corrupt establishment Republicans and Democrats.
I was sold when he was willing to back down on some of his own views publicly, admitting publicly that he was wrong on some things. That kind of admission and honesty is so refreshing.
Complete opposite of Trump, MAGA, and constant lies. Kudos NYC! Time for a new era.
Also, he deserves credit for not backing down. A major push calling you a pro-9/11 jihadist? Release an ad speaking Arabic two days before the election.
> For example, Massachusetts rates are way up because New England politicians have spent more than a decade fighting natural gas infrastructure, especially pipelines that would bring cheap North American gas vs. LNG that is in short supply post-Russia/Ukraine war.
This problem is unrelated to datacenters. The datacenter boom has created demand in markets outside New England, which is seeping into New England. It only got compounded by lack of natural gas.
> At the same time, MA politicians created the “Mass Save” program that’s effectively a giant boondoggle where utility ratepayers are subsidizing fly-by-night “energy efficiency” contractors who have no incentive to be efficient at all.
Mass save is actually a great program. Mass houses are old, creaky, and lacking insulation. Mass save let these things be upgraded at a lower price burden to the masses. If you are talking about heat pumps, heat pumps can have backup furnaces - you could use natural gas if you wanted. The idea behind a heat pump was to have it work with solar, wind, and other low cost energy sources.
Then trump came in and shot all these other sources at gunpoint. And you are seeing it in your bills.
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?
reply