• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -211 months ago

    democratic party (…) agenda of allowing people to live a quiet life (…) without major medical complications bankrupting them

    Yeah, no. While significantly better than the previous system, the ACA was a huge giveaway to the medical insurance industry.

    Which makes sense when you consider how the corporate Dems recieve more in legal bribes from that same industry than Republicans do.

    • Transporter Room 3
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      That thing that Republicans crippled at every opportunity? The poor replacement for universal Healthcare that had to be put out because actual Healthcare reform won’t happen in current times without people ignoring the stupid minority who doesn’t understand that true universal healthcare will eventually SAVE money on Healthcare for everyone in the US, including what you pay in taxes.

      Fuck all the way off with “both sides” bullshit. Only one side wants me and mine dead.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Not all criticism of corporate democrat greed is “both sidesing”. It’s a fact that they are raking in tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in legal bribes from the insurance industry every election season.

        It’s also a fact that the ACA passed with 0 Republican votes, meaning that the ones who were responsible for making it extremely lucrative for the donors and not universal single payer were all democrats.

        Just because the ones on the other side of the aisle are much worse (and I’ll not for a second deny that. They’re a literal fascist party) doesn’t mean that the DNC leadership cares more about you than their owner donors.

        Biden even said that he would veto M4A, based on a false talking point directly from PHRMA.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 months ago

      The giveaway was mostly to fund electronic medical records and the upgrade to standards in line with the WHO documentation standard. The money that was provided was usually not enough because so many organizations were basically starting from the beginning. I was at a top ten health in the US org, and it took years to build our system and when the ACA was approved, we really started to make a lot of big jumps in progress

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -1
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        The giveaway was mostly to fund electronic medical records and the upgrade to standards in line with the WHO documentation standard

        Bullshit. The vast majority of health care funding goes to health insurance companies profits, not fucking record keeping 🤦

        The money that was provided

        I’m talking about the money STILL being provided every day of every year. Whichever cherry picked one time payment you pick, it’s nothing compared to that.

        I was at a top ten health in the US org

        Ah, so THAT’S why you’re so adamant about defending the ACA! You’re one of the ACTUAL primary beneficiaries!

        when the ACA was approved, we really started to make a lot of big jumps in progress

        That’s an odd way to spell profits.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          Do you even know that the bills are generated by your medical record? If it’s not in the record how do they know what to charge you?

          You are clearly ignorant and just cynical

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -111 months ago

            Yay, another strawman! I never said that record keeping isn’t important. I said that it’s not where anywhere near the majority of the healthcare funds are going and neither is treatment.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              011 months ago

              Just because you cannot comprehend the complexity of a situation doesn’t mean someone is dealing in logical fallacy.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                0
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Putting aside your arrogant “you can’t possibly know better than me, I worked at A BIG COMPANY in the industry” bullshit, that was a strawman no matter how much or how little I know or comprehend.

                Since you apparently aren’t aware, this is the definition

                straw man

                An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated

                What my argument was and is: the vast majority of health care funding is not going towards record keeping. That most of it is going to corporate profits is the main failing of the ACA.

                The argument of your strawman version of me: The ACA is bad because record keeping doesn’t matter.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  011 months ago

                  if you understood logical fallacy I would argue with you more but you clearly don’t and you don’t understand the ACA or the cost of healthcare. So I am done with your idiocy.

                  So here is some advice, if you feel a logical fallacy is being used you argue that but calling it out isnt the instant win you think it is. It actually just shows how intellectually weak your own argument is.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    011 months ago

                    if you understood logical fallacy

                    I’ve literally just demonstrated that I do.

                    you don’t understand the ACA or the cost of healthcare

                    Newsflash: not falling for your pro-corporate gaslighting ≠ ignorance

                    So I am done with your idiocy.

                    Likewise, bootlicker.

                    if you feel a logical fallacy is being used you argue that but calling it out isnt the instant win you think it is. It actually just shows how intellectually weak your own argument is.

                    That I’ve demonstrated that your argument is based on inventing a false version of my argument to make it easier to defeat makes MY argument look weak? The one you couldn’t defeat without altering it?

                    What the fuck have you been smoking?? 🤦