The only sentence that could be seen as politically motivated is "Never has there been a clearer case for single-payer health care as a public good." With the exception of that one sentence, those are all facts, and it's disturbing to think that saying the fact that insurance is tied to employment is somehow political.
You and the other commenter I believe are not seeing other sides to positions, which is common amongst almost everyone.
Those "facts" (facts, themselves, are subjective because they judged so by man) presented are highly selective in order to lead to a specific conclusion.
For example, it doesn't state that you can't purchase health insurance across state borders - also a fact and also contributes to increased prices.
The reason that insurance is "tied" to employment is because only a company can deduct health insurance on their taxes.
Building a new hospital is nearly impossible due to, among many other regulations, being required to get permission from other regional hospitals before building a new hospital. This both increases prices and reduces the number of available beds.
And to yet further demonstrate my point, we can see that even mentioning the political agenda on the site generates discussion on the politics.
> For example, it doesn't state that you can't purchase health insurance across state borders - also a fact and also contributes to increased prices.
That is true, and there are many other facts it doesn't mention, it is not an exhaustive review of contributing factors...
> The reason that insurance is "tied" to employment is because only a company can deduct health insurance on their taxes.
That is true but irrelevant extra information, the virus doesn't care...
> Building a new hospital is nearly impossible due to, among many other regulations, being required to get permission from other regional hospitals before building a new hospital. This both increases prices and reduces the number of available beds.
That is true, how is it relevant?
All these facts aren't relevant to the discussion the article is introducing, about how the "US Labor and Healthcare Policies are a Perfect Storm for Pandemics"
But none of those reasons matter - the "why" that insurance is tied to employment doesn't matter because it does and affects this situations reality, right now. Apologizing for that "why" doesn't change the situation one iota.
> But none of those reasons matter - the "why" that insurance is tied to employment doesn't matter because it does and affects this situations reality, right now. Apologizing for that "why" doesn't change the situation one iota.
I seem to have not made my positions clear: The site has a political agenda, which is made clear by the quoted section, which includes statements are selected to support the political policy being promoted.
So, the reason the things I stated matter is that we can easily come to different conclusions, and that is likely why they are left off of the site:
Can't sell health insurance across state borders - fix by permitting sales across borders, putting downward pressure on price.
Insurance is tied to employment because of the tax code - fix by either eliminating the deduction or adding the deduction to personal tax code.
Can't build new hospitals because you have to get permission from other regional hospitals - fix by getting rid of the regulation, thus generating increased interest in new hospital development, in turn increasing the number of beds and putting downward pressure on prices.
> Do you reject the statement made by TFA, 'US Labor and Healthcare Policies are a Perfect Storm for Pandemics'?
I have not disagreed with any of the stated facts and I don't disagree with that claim, I'm claiming that the facts have been carefully selected to promote a political agenda.
As an example: "Zero guaranteed financial or operational support for people who should self-quarantine. People are therefore ignoring quarantine because they need to eat. " This exactly lays out how people are behaving. That's not politics.
> As an example: "Zero guaranteed financial or operational support for people who should self-quarantine. People are therefore ignoring quarantine because they need to eat. " This exactly lays out how people are behaving. That's not politics.
If you expect responses, you should spend more time making sure you understand what posters have posted, because it seems you haven't read anything I posted beyond one single post.
Reply to generalpass (here because replies weren't enabled to their comment for some reason)
> For example, it doesn't state that you can't purchase health insurance across state borders - also a fact and also contributes to increased prices.
That is true, and there are many other facts it doesn't mention, it is not an exhaustive review of contributing factors...
> The reason that insurance is "tied" to employment is because only a company can deduct health insurance on their taxes.
That is true but irrelevant extra information, the virus doesn't care...
> Building a new hospital is nearly impossible due to, among many other regulations, being required to get permission from other regional hospitals before building a new hospital. This both increases prices and reduces the number of available beds.
That is true, how is it relevant?
All these facts aren't relevant to the discussion the article is introducing, about how the "US Labor and Healthcare Policies are a Perfect Storm for Pandemics"
Just for information - "reply" takes longer and longer to appear the further down a tree you get. I assume it's to stop a rapid fire heated argument and force some reflection time.
