politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This is really the only logical answer. When else is someone allowed to force you to agree to unknown terms at the consequence of your health? That matches every definition of extortion I can find...
You're not even "agreeing" to the unknown terms a lot of the time. Your "agreement" is just assumed. How the hell can you "agree" to anything if you're unconscious and being brought to the hospital in an ambulance after a car accident? Or when you're literally in the middle of a heart attack?
99.99% of people who are going to hospitals aren't exactly in any condition to shop around, make informed choices, or "agree" to anything at all, and most of the services they're being billed for were most likely for services rendered while the patient was still incapacitated or otherwise unable to agree to anything. And what if you disagree? You die? And if you don't like the prices your hospital is going to charge, what are you going to do if it's the only hospital in your area?
If you were to enter literally any other "agreement" in this country when there are no competing hospitals in your area to shop around for, the terms of the agreement are unknown until weeks or months after services are rendered, and you are in no way capable of giving informed consent at the time the agreement is made, it would be thrown out of court for being made under duress and for being too one-sided.
Exactly. I do agree with you, except possibly on your comments about only doing what insurance pays for. I feel that would go the opposite of the way I imagine you are picturing.
As you said, if someone is dying, unconscious, etc, nobody will be able to tell what, if any, insurance you have. Also, with some of the crappier plans out there, especially the barebones "Anti-Obamacare" plans red states are pushing, you might be having a very unpleasant visit if no one from insurance can confirm in a timely manner what they will cover, or if you can only get an Ibuprofen after your surgery instead of a narcotic, etc.
I assume your plan would be more like, the medical team does the same job they'd do on you as anyone else, and then insurance is stuck with that bill. But as we all have some form of tiered insurance as it is, if we have any at all, that's about as moot as discussing single payer. And that is why single payer is the only reasonable way to go forward. Any games going on are between the hospital and the fed, where they belong. We're all mostly out of the equation then. Except for medical procedures still deemed political, in which the list for that seems to be growing and ever changing as well. But that's a story for another time....and not from me, that's too heated for me!