Bret Stephens, the author, is not telling the whole story and using the omissions to spin a story of ‘most Americans are happy with the system.’ This [expletive] says the below to defend against the united anger at the health insurance industry
As for the suggestion that Thompson’s murder should be an occasion to discuss America’s supposed rage at private health insurers, it’s worth pointing out that a 2023 survey from the nonpartisan health policy research institute KFF found that 81 percent of insured adults gave their health insurance plans a rating of “excellent” or “good.” Even a majority of those who say their health is “fair” or “poor” still broadly like their health insurance. No industry is perfect — nor is any health care model — and insurance companies make terrible calls all the time in the interest of cost savings. But the idea that those companies represent a unique evil in American life is divorced from the experience of most of their customers.
This [expletive] looked at the report’s top and only positive point and ignored the rest. The next very next point is
- Despite rating their insurance positively, most insured adults report experiencing problems using their health coverage; people in poorer health are more likely to report problems. A majority of insured adults (58%) say they have experienced a problem using their health insurance in the past 12 months – such as denied claims, provider network problems, and pre-authorization problems.
Here are the other points on the report:
- Nearly half of insured adults who had insurance problems were unable to satisfactorily resolve them, with some reporting serious consequences. Half of consumers with insurance problems say their problem was resolved to their satisfaction.
- Affordability of premiums and out-of-pocket costs are a concern, particularly for those with private health coverage, and for some, contributed to not getting care. About half of adults with Marketplace plans (55%) or ESI (46%) rate their insurance negatively when it comes to premiums, compared to 27% of people with Medicare and 10% of Medicaid enrollees. Four-in-ten insured adults say they skipped or delayed some type of care in the past year due to cost. One in six insured adults (16%), including larger shares of those at lower income levels, say they had problems paying medical bills in the past year.
- Insured adults overwhelmingly support public policies to make insurance simpler to understand and to help them avoid or resolve insurance problems. About nine in ten say they support requirements on insurers to maintain accurate and up-to-date provider directories, provide simpler, easier-to read EOBs, disclose their claims denial rates to regulators and the public, and provide in advance, upon request, information about whether care is covered and their out-of-pocket cost liability.
[Expletive] this disingenuously written story, [expletive] Bret Stephen for not telling the whole story, and [expletive] the New York Times for time after time publishing BS and propaganda that sets us all back.
I wanted to vomit, this morning when I read that piece of tp.
I’m sure many are happy with their plans given that they have no real choice.
I’d be happier with a plan that punches me in the face twice a year rather than one that punches me monthly.
Yeah, people rating their insurance as “excellent” obviously comes with the implied “compared to other US healthcare insurance options,” if you read the rest of it or spend even 5 seconds thinking about it.
Your nanny state instance admins redact naughty words to “[expletive]” before it federates out. It’s pretty funny when you use it a bunch of times to help get your anger across.
SCP wiki be like
It does? Hahahaha, that’s great, I’m trying to swear less in general, but good to know I didn’t have to redact myself on here. I’m curious to see what happens.
Shit fuck.
Edit: did the instance filter it? It’s still showing up for me.
Shows in this post. I guess it censores it when used to describe people, like “these fucking healthcare CEOs and their piece of shit allies”.
No, those came through fine.
I assure you this poll was biased against the dead.
It sounds like Bret really idolizes that CEO. I hope he guys the same treatment
Well I was thinking a teacher. That’s how I learned, in mass media class. Thanks Ms. Bailey!
The author, Bret Stephens, inherited his fortune from a chemical company his parents built. Just for context as to why he defends a sleezy multi-millionaire
Even his name exudes privilege. Who names their kid Bret anymore? Seriously…
I read that as “Brat”, lol.
I mean might as well
Here’s the article summary:
“One time, Brian worked in a field. Luigi on the other hand, had rich parents, just like Osama Bin Laden.”
I fucking wish I was joking.
“He ate steaks like Trump, not like that despicable vegetarian, Hitler”
“Oh God, the poor are uniting! Quick, we need to stir up some division”
I laughed out loud at this.
An alternate opinion column could be: “One time, Adolf was an aspiring artist. Winston on the other hand, had rich parents, just like Osama Bin Laden.”
Winston Churchill was a genuinely awful human being and a war criminal prior to WWII.
He lucked out by also being a moderately competent wartime leader, who gets to be juxtaposed against Hitler for eternity.
Also, Brett Stephens is a bed bug and has a terrible track record of properly handling public backlash to his writing. I hope dark days are ahead for him.
Yeah I know he’s not an angel and is in the example specifically due to the juxtaposition.
I understand someone brings this up everytime Churchill is mentioned in a good light, so out of curiosity: who would be a better comparable figurehead? Joseph? Franklin? Neville? Albert?
Churchill is fine to use. People keep trying to go back and just shit on everything, at some point you have to just move on. He literarily helped defeat Hitler, that has to count for something.
Spoken like someone who has no historical understanding of Churchill’s pre-WWII legacy. He’s not retroactively awful, he was awful by the standards of his own era.
https://jacobin.com/2022/09/winston-churchill-british-empire-racism-wwii
I’m still waiting for you to help me find an appropriate alternative. Which ww2-era leader was not racist?
Churchill wasn’t bad simply because he was a racist… I think retrograde views on race are one of the areas where it’s reasonable make allowances when judging historical figures.
Churchill was an aristocrat and an imperialist responsible for numerous atrocities within Britain’s colonial holdings, and that’s not even going into his anti-labor beliefs and practices.
The reason why I didn’t provide you an alternative was because your original comment never required you to mention Churchill. That was an unforced error on your part, as the comment you were responding to wasn’t an analogy to begin with.
But if you’re deadset on needing an alternative for your unnecessary analogy, FDR is easily the best of a bad bunch.
Also, Brett Stephens is a bed bug
Wow we’re just going to allow blatant antisemitism on here /s
Holy fucking shit. Imagine writing this out and thinking it’s a good thing to publish. What an idiot. What a buffoon. What an absolute bitch boy cuck ass moron.
Came to comment on the columnist being a corporate shill piece of shit, but you found more flowery words :)
I’d call him a buttchugging fuck dandy, but that’s just me.
You could all be right. He could be an absolute piece of shit buttchugging bitch boy cuck ass moron dandy corporate shill.
You do realize this is an opinion column? You can tell by the big letters at the top that spell out OPINION
EDIT: here’s my “both sides” take on this, you all are as dumb as Fox News viewers. IMO (notice the O stands for opinion, please do not hold Lemmy accountable for what I say) schools need to implement a class on the media. Kids need to learn the difference between news and opinion. Also learn how to identify the source of the news. Also don’t post your nudes on the internet. Things are about to get a lot worse with AI and deep fakes
Yeah and? Doesn’t make his opinion any less garbage
Your point? The Editor still has control over what is allowed to be printed/released and associated with their name.
So edgey, dear
In a comment full of shit takes, i just wanna point out that you think the government teaching media literacy in school is the solution?
I hope you wear a helmet regularly.
The great thing about opinions? They typically spur opinions from other people. And those opinions spur more opinions.
What I’m trying to say is that the article being an opinion does not in any way negate the comment you’re being dismissive of, which in itself is an opinion too. That’s kind of how conversations happen.
Do you see NYT publishing any opinion pieces to the effect of “The healthcare CEO socially murdered thousands every year and the fact that we don’t have a legal mechanism to deal with them is infinitely more important than a guy who only killed one person”
An opinion The NY Times chose to share with their readers.
I have an opinion, you’re an ignorant bootlicker! Should that get posted to the frontpage of the times too?
That commeneter is a classic neo lib call for “reasonableness”
Daddy is raping you but you need to hear about both sides, boy:
It is for your own good
Purity Now! Purity Tomorrow! Purity Forever!
You do realize, even for an opinion piece, this is astoundingly poor quality and taste? You can tell by having two brain cells to rub together.
I expect this sort of shit from a tabloid, not from any organization claiming journalistic integrity. A shitty piece is still a shitty piece, even if it’s hiding behind the opinion column banner.
Opinions should be here to stay!
I liked the preprint of their opinion column publishing tomorrow, headline:
Some of those kids in Palestine were asking for it
Nobody responding to you was unaware this was an opinion piece.
Reread the responses and try again.
NYT still saw fit to publish it. Most would consider that a tacit endorsement.
Somebody paid NYT and this parasite to do this job.
Plebs need to understand that these shill ops ain’t free…
That, and the author is a regular writer for the opinion section there, with consistently terrible takes.
NYT doesn’t decide if its news or opinion alone, so does their audience.
Therefore they are responsible for the ideas they give a platform too.
Do you remember why are they avoiding face shots of Luigi?
Oh my fucking yuck!
One capitalist parasite down, plenty more to go.
The New York Times has been pure shit since the W years when they pushed Iraq war propaganda.
Trump is an evil moron, but he’s right about one thing, our media is full of shills and liars.
The crazy part is they are lying and shilling for the right, while being called “leftist”, it’s a fantastic lie that has been propagated.
It’s been shit for longer than that.
If they call it Leftist, they can pretend to be the lovable underdog
The newspapers used to publish whatever the government said was true when it came to war and foreign policy. That changed slightly when news reporters in Vietnam repeatedly witnessed the reality and reported it back regardless of what their editors and government officials wanted to be published.
It was why Vietnam vets returning home were called baby killers. Because they were killing babies. Now the press have realigned themselves to return to being under the hegemony of the government in hopes of staying in business.
The opinion section of any paper is a disaster not worth your time.
Just a place for regime whores to earn their fee lol
It’s crazy how many people mistake opinion pieces for articles. This isn’t the NYT’s opinion. It’s just that one person’s opinion.
NYT are still genocide enablers and regime whores tho
That’s one hell of a conclusion to jump to. We’ve all got fucking eyes and can see the header, bozo.
If it was just some person’s opinion, it would be posted as a Facebook screed, on a personal blog, Medium post, or Substack post. You get the picture. There’s an infinite amount of places online to personally toss your own opinion up for the world to see.
While the opinion piece label is a very important disclaimer-- The New York Times reviewed, vetted, and made an active choice to publish this drivel and attach their name and reputation to it. Pretending that doesn’t mean anything is a mistake.
It’s their job to report what people are thinking and saying. That doesn’t mean they endorse the opinion. Clearly, you also don’t understand what an opinion section is.
I’m convinced Lemmy doesn’t know what that is.
A short while back I saw a comment on Lemmy mention something along the lines of how opinion pieces are the best/only place that they go for their info… And it had a ton of upvotes.
Bret Stephens is an absolute clown.
So when you search for this the top result is r/neoliberal. TIL there’s a neoliberal subreddit.
If he’s such a hero, why is everyone happy he’s dead?
Because he’s the hero we deserve, but not the one we need right now.
So, we’ll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he’s not our hero: He’s a silent guardian, a watchful protector.
you should feel bad because he’s a dead hero.
/S
The NYT has been garbage for a very long time.
They really hate trans people, batman, and Hillary’s email server that’s all I know
Batman?
Some people are calling Luigi batman because he comes from an affluent background. But I could be wrong with this assumption
Terrible comparison, Batman is part of the problem of Gotham, being the billionaire that uses company money to pay for his fantasy of beating up people
Some things they do well. Some things not so well. Doesn’t have to be one or the other.
They serve the owner class… What do they do well?
You answered you’re own question.
Honestly if you can’t go shoplift a copy tomorrow and find five things you like about it, you’re a hack and miserable prick.
If you’re suggesting there is value to be found in the New York times, I haven’t seen any in a couple of decades. Of course I almost never try to read that paper these days, but on the rare occasions that I do it’s just a waste of time. There’s nothing interesting at all.
The fucking crossword puzzle too huh? Give me a break.
That depends on who looks at it, too.
It can very well be seen as all bad, why wouldn’t it?Because that’s idiotic. The crossword puzzle is “bad” too? You can’t learn anything from a single one of their articles?
Writing off the entire thing as “all bad” is based on your emotional feelings about the NYT, not any rational or factual reasoning.
I didn’t say that I perceive the whole of NYT as bad. In fact I didn’t say anything about how I perceive the NYT at all.
I was merely trying to explain that such a subjective assessment may be very different from subject to subject doing the assessment.
You can very well find good things in NYT based on your own emotional feelings.Okay I get that, everyone has different taste.
They don’t like the font, too?
The weather reports are bad?
If someone can’t find a few nice things to say about anything they’re a cunt, you may not know this yet but it is true.
Wow, I’m sure the masses disagree with this opinion.
