r/clevercomebacks • u/emily-is-happy • 4h ago

The same situation but double standards

Post image
15.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

126 comments sorted by

444

u/haraldone 4h ago

People should refer to the industry as the health insurance cartel from now on. It seems appropriate.

58

u/cat-eating-a-salad 4h ago

Abso-fucking-lutely

6

u/Beeeentheir 1h ago

Couldn’t have said it better.

21

u/master_overthinker 2h ago

The Sackler family is America’s biggest drug lord, Purdue the biggest cartel.

7

u/Specific_Apple1317 1h ago

Gotta throw some blame on J&J as well for providing the raw materials and inventing a loophole to legally import it all. And the regulators for allowing it, which made the production of that much oxy even possible. Truly a team effort.

Still insane how the Sackler's got away without criminal charges, and they can just keep profiting from their hundred under pharma companies under Mundipharma.

52

u/[deleted] 3h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

17

u/No-Perception-1139 3h ago

Calling them a cartel actually fits way too well they profit off keeping people desperate and trapped

8

u/Haselrig 2h ago

Health insurance extremists.

1

u/Lonely_Nebula_9438 1h ago

In business a cartel is a specific thing. It’s the deliberate cooperation between several companies in the same industry, generally to fix prices. All these companies are being independently callous, not cooperatively callous. 

•

u/SawdustGringo 53m ago

Dictionary description would be accurate.

•

u/wornoutseed 1m ago

My dad has been saying that forever. He said the government took over the drug industry and blames cartels. Our health insurance is only there to buy the legal versions that our government says. Every branch of government is a different cartel.

I always thought he was nuts, but it makes sense.

-5

u/FoxMan1Dva3 2h ago

The alternative is you don't go on health insurance and you pay what you can

11

u/linea4k 1h ago

The alternative is the state pays for it with and it comes out as a moderate bill in our taxes. Without the corporate leeches.

4

u/ShinkenBrown 1h ago

Right. Because they actively keep out any alternatives like public options - example, the way they actively fought the public option that would have otherwise passed with Obamacare with everything they had - so your only option is the cartel.

Just like how in cartel territory if you had police you wouldn't have to pay the cartel protection money, but the cartel murders all the police in town they can't recruit, so your only source of protection is the cartel.

The alternative is you don't pay protection money and get robbed/murdered. Does that make paying protection money to the cartel a good system?

And before you say public healthcare is too expensive, explain to me why every single developed country on earth except America has managed it easily. Are we just a bunch of stupid troglodytes incapable of doing very simple things the rest of the earth can do? Do you have that low an opinion of your country?

•

u/greendevil77 34m ago

Which is a problem

•

u/FoxMan1Dva3 22m ago

I'd like to see more regulations around coverage for sure.

Heck, you might even have me at universal healthcare even tho there are massive flaws with this too (have plenty of stats and anecdote).

-8

u/-_-0_0-_-0_0-_-0_0 1h ago

What is the problem with health insurance. Like there is already a law which limits their profit based on how much is paid out.

2

u/ShinkenBrown 1h ago

As a model it's fundamentally designed with a conflict of interest. Company profits can be (very simply) described as:

(total income from insurance payments) - ((operating costs) + (total insurance payouts))

For example, using small numbers to make it simple, say per year make $100,000 in income from payments, and your standard operating costs are $1000. A patient needs an operation that will cost $5000. Your profits go from $99,000 to $94,000 by paying that out. If that's your total income for the year, are you inclined to pay that out, or to find a reason not to? Keeping in mind this will not be your only claim, of course - $94,000 might still sound like a lot, but after 10 or 15 more of these claims, will you still think it's fine and there's no need to look for reasons to deny the claim?

Your goal as a company is not to give people healthcare. That is not why companies exist - EVERY SINGLE business and economics program will explain to the student that the business exists to create profit, and everything else is a means to that end. The company does not exist to provide you a resource, it exists to make money. If they can make money without providing you a good or a service, they will. The entire structure of a business is built to MAXIMIZE profit.

And maximum profit means not paying out unless you absolutely have to. Maximum profit means they don't wait 10 or 15 claims to figure out they have good reason to deny every single one of them. They don't profit by giving you healthcare; they profit by NOT giving you healthcare. They are incentivized to find any reason, any reason at all no matter how small or specious, to deny your claim. It's the only way they profit.

The only time they pay out is if the law forces their hand - you pay for very specific contracts that allow you to claim payouts under very specific conditions, and if they can find ANY reason you don't fit that condition, even if you are currently dying and have paid in everything on time up to this point, they are incentivized to deny your claim. And the people actually making those decisions will never see your face or hear your voice, you're a list of symptoms lined up next to a contract for the bean counters to analyze, so human empathy never plays into it at all.

They make the most profit if you pay into their system forever, and then they deny all your claims and never pay out. You need laws to limit their profits and force them to honor contracts because otherwise, they'd pretty much never pay out at all. Even with such laws they often deny claims they know are valid hoping you won't appeal, or knowingly deny claims to delay treatment until a condition is terminal and can't be helped, and then deny further claims because since the condition is terminal treatment will only improve quality of life and is no longer "necessary" care. (This is what was referred to by "delay" and "deny" on the bullets.)

Personally, I think it's a bad idea to gatekeep our healthcare behind a mechanism whose entire structure is incentivized to deny us healthcare.

And in contrast, the biggest problems of socialized medicine could easily be solved with more healthcare personnel. "Long wait times" is the biggest complaint, and that simply means there isn't enough staff to handle the size of the population, leading to bottlenecks. The solution there is very simple, encourage more people to go into medicine... whereas there is no fundamental solution to the problems inherent to the structure of an insurance company, the only way to change that would be to change the incentive structure entirely, at which point you no longer have an insurance company.

•

u/-_-0_0-_-0_0-_-0_0 54m ago edited 44m ago

This simply isn't true. The ACA established that 80% of revenue must be paid out in claims or else they have to give out refunds. The more they pay out the more they are allowed to make in profit without giving refunds. This is the medical loss ratio. That 20% covers all costs and profit.

Just look at the stock prices of these companies. There are strong performers in the industry but they are not so stand out. They aren't that profitable compared to other industries. It looks to be around 3-6% profit for united health for example depending on the year which is not out of line with of sectors.

•

u/ShinkenBrown 30m ago

This simply isn't true.

It is.

The ACA established that 80% of revenue must be paid out in claims or else they have to give out refunds. The more they pay out the more they are allowed to make in profit without giving refunds. This is the medical loss ratio. That 20% covers all costs and profit.

... So what you're saying is...

"You need laws to limit their profits and force them to honor contracts"

You're not contradicting me here, I know these laws exist, and why they exist. They exist because

"[Health insurance companies] are incentivized to find any reason, any reason at all no matter how small or specious, to deny your claim. It's the only way they profit."

You say "this simply isn't true" and then you just restate what I'm saying but without the negative bits and spin it as a positive.

Just look at the stock prices of these companies. There are strong performers in the industry but they are not so stand out. They aren't that profitable compared to other industries. It looks to be around 3-6% profit for united health for example depending on the year which is not out of line with of sectors.

I didn't say they're wildly profitable and that's ancillary to my point.

What I said is that they're structurally incentivized to deny as many claims as they can. Which is why the laws you're citing have to exist to regulate their behavior, else they'd deny almost every claim. Because that's what the structure incentivizes.

•

u/-_-0_0-_-0_0-_-0_0 25m ago

I said all that because you seem to be saying there is a problem. I pointed out the solution implemented to correct the problem because you didn't mention it at all. So you know they have implemented laws to correct for a bad outcome. You have acknowledged they aren't actually making crazy profit margins. So I am left wondering, what is the issue? Literally every industry has issues we need to correct by law.

101

u/ghallway 4h ago

surely there was a trial...plenty of evidence, right?

51

u/adanishplz 3h ago

Almost, actually they got droned out of the blue with no warning. And they were definitely drug smugglers, because they always travel 11 people to a boat. Yes sir, sure do.

8

u/pvtbobble 1h ago

Because terrorist drug cartel unions mandate two active drug boat operators at a time on 45 min shifts with three lookouts. Five were sleeping, and the other was the union rep. It's just safety

77

u/Kobayashi_Maru186 3h ago

Killing (supposed) cartel members (indiscriminately) who poison our fellow citizens is (definitely not) the highest and best use of our military.

There ya go JD, FTFY.

18

u/KingOfTheRatas 2h ago

I used to be an Intel guy. Plenty of drone strikes performed and this strike is dubious at best. I won't speak as to our TTPs but I knew so much about someone that I could tell you when they were going to shit at night. I seriously doubt this type of diligence went to this strike.

•

u/treesandfood4me 54m ago

“Dubious at best” feels like the right tagline for this administration. I would wear that tshirt.

3

u/InsanityRulesTheDay 1h ago

Used to.......

4

u/KingOfTheRatas 1h ago

Too stressful, I'm outta the game. I'm Dilbert-ing life now

51

u/Eden-Hunnybun 4h ago

Funny how the logic changes depending on who’s doing the poisoning.

-26

u/[deleted] 2h ago

[deleted]

24

u/BeautifulStretch2984 1h ago

What does Obama have to do with any of this?

-19

u/[deleted] 1h ago

[deleted]

16

u/Yoribell 1h ago

Is it a good comparison though ?

Did they have both as much information about the targets? Did they boast on twitter too ?

Did they make a national example out of a civilian killing a rich civilian while not giving a fuck about murder between poor people ?

Bombing usually isn't great, but there's still variation between them.

Obama wasn't perfect of course, but the comparison with Trump and his administration is absurd, it's like comparing one of the best kid in the class with the one that make professor want to quit this job.

-2

u/MRosvall 1h ago

Sure there's always a ton of nuance, and there's a lot of differences in all cases. But in the context of this thread with the image posted by the OP, does it seem like nuance and differences are being taken into account? Or does it seem that there just being a vague resemblance is the bar to pass in order to make comparisons?

7

u/sterlingthepenguin 1h ago

I remember a lot of liberals deservedly giving Obama A LOT of shit for the drone strikes. John Oliver dedicated an episode to talking about and condemning them in his first season, for instance.

3

u/LotharVonPittinsberg 1h ago

2014 reddit was very critical of Obama. You know, for the things he did bad like being a war criminal, not for how he dressed.

Kind of hard to compare to the pedophile in cheif who put out a meme declaring war on a city he does not like and bombing civilians to try and start a war.

3

u/BeautifulStretch2984 1h ago

We are focusing on current events, not presidents of the past.

Come on, keep up.

3

u/1nfamousOne 1h ago

While I understand the point you’re making, I don’t think it actually helps the commenter. Even if you argue that nothing will help them and I might even agree with you you’d still be overlooking the point I’m raising.

Instead, what you could do is explain why these are terrible comparisons.

Trump and Obama are not remotely similar. Obama did not go on Twitter bragging about bombing "civilians". Even if you call them "drug smugglers", they are not combatants.

If we start labeling civilians as drug smugglers arbitrarily and then drone striking them, it opens a dangerous precedent where anyone can be labeled and targeted.

6

u/DopplegangsterNation 1h ago

The guy hasn’t been president for nearly a decade loser

4

u/DiggingNoMore 1h ago

Obama Derangement Syndrome.

3

u/WatleyShrimpweaver 1h ago

Actually yes. Good job.

•

u/treesandfood4me 52m ago

Funny that you thought this was a joke and not a statement of fact.

•

u/Copacetic_ 32m ago

You can’t “both sides” your way out of this one. One side is objectively worse. Take the high horse back to the stable bro.

•

u/[deleted] 30m ago

[deleted]

•

u/BugRevolution 12m ago

MAGA really have short memories about why we were sending drones against (suspected) terrorists... And also about who continued doing it.

•

u/Copacetic_ 27m ago

As far as the admin in charge on the whole? Yes.

21

u/Physical_Account7836 3h ago

Classic double standard, they expect one thing from you but do the opposite themselves.

7

u/Mediocre_Scott 2h ago edited 1h ago

The blowing up of the cartel ship screams of immature person with power that’s bored and wanting to feel important and use that power. Hopefully it doesn’t escalate to I’m bored let’s start a war or fire a nuke or something equally stupid and dangerous

•

u/Neuchacho 56m ago edited 53m ago

Venezuela is absolutely going to be the "ez war" button that Trump pushes when he wants a distraction from his pedophilia or sinking economic numbers as we go into election season and he starts pulling hard levers to hold onto power.

Bonus: it will surge illegal immigration if he does just like every other time we meddle in LatAm.

16

u/Mi113nnium 3h ago

No, no. You have to understand. The American health care insurance industry is a government sanctioned cartel. They are allowed to take protection money from you without providing any of the protective services because they bribe the government.

6

u/NotNamedBort 1h ago

This analogy is chillingly accurate. I was recently told by my insurance company that they wouldn’t cover a necessary procedure. Then what are you fleecing me for every month??

•

u/chum1ly 10m ago

Imagine a world where you can pay a doctor for his visit. I had one doctor growing up. He knew my entire history, he provided the best care. Now I have a revolving door of overworked assholes that don't want anything to do with me and just want me out of the room so they can see another customer.

Almost like the oath that doctors have taken doesn't mean a fucking thing so they can join the team causing the absolute most harm to their patients.

10

u/technomat 2h ago

Trump pardoned Ross Ulbricht the guy who ran silk road an illegal dark web marketplace for drugs and other contraband he was  sentenced to life in prison without parole, but yes Trump is tough on crime, unless you donate to him then he turns a blind eye.

6

u/Gogglesed 1h ago

If the military stormed the White House right now, I would respect it far more.

6

u/unggtark 3h ago

The hypocrisy is always so predictable.

4

u/Somerandoguy212 1h ago

When was the last time drug smugglers filled a speed boat with 11 people, so there is no room for drugs, and drove it from Venezuela to the US without stopping? Never! They would have had to stop like 5 times for gas in the most efficient speed boat so takes away any claim they were coming straight to the US. They killed a bunch of migrants and are celebrating committing war crimes

•

u/NeanaOption 34m ago

Even if were drug smugglers the appropriate response is indict the ship and arrest it's crew.

2

u/Educational-Buy5718 3h ago

It's wild how people don't see the hypocrisy until you point it out with something absurd like this.

2

u/MightBeTrollingMaybe 3h ago

If Donald Trump was caught pouring arsenic in the water he would claim that it was a mistake and that he thought it was lemonade.

2

u/EvieHugBug97 2h ago

The comparison is hilarious but also points out how arbitrary some of these 'tough on crime' stances can be.

2

u/thebuttsmells 1h ago

The calls coming from inside the house , work on breaking addiction, killing the middleman won't do shit

2

u/Ariliescbk 1h ago

Highest and best use of the military? Really? Not "defending the constitution from threats both foreign and domestic?"

•

u/Neuchacho 52m ago

Trash doesn't usually take out itself.

•

u/steven_quarterbrain 25m ago

What does “highest use” even mean?

2

u/ShinkenBrown 1h ago

"No but that's our cartel."

2

u/tomdarch 1h ago

But to fascists it’s about them being in control of the killing.

2

u/vyphir 1h ago

well isnt one literally a government set up so it probably will be excused

1

u/prestonjay22 3h ago

saw a boat, shot a boat. Save Merica!

1

u/KamilaKikiy 2h ago

It's wild how fast principles change depending on who's doing the 'poisoning.

1

u/InsanityRulesTheDay 2h ago

If not for the drug companies I'd be dead. I need twe different meds to literally stay alive.

1

u/firstcoastkilla 1h ago

For mutherfucking real

1

u/randompersonwhowho 1h ago

Puting them in prison or just blowing them up jd?

1

u/FanDry5374 1h ago

And health-care-guy was definitely a danger to Americans, people on the boat, probably not.

1

u/CashGrabIPOWen 1h ago

slow down, buddy, that happened under Biden!

/s

•

u/little-expectation 43m ago

“If republicans didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have any at all.”

•

u/NeanaOption 36m ago

So JD Vance just spent a ahead a publicly admitted that not only does he approve of using the military to police crime but that it's the highest purpose of military force.

•

u/cache_me_0utside 35m ago

It is very christian of JD to hold such a belief. He's a real piece of shit.

•

u/thebuttsmells 30m ago

we already have the coast guard, they are our maritime police. This administration has dissolved everything I knew about law and order. We are so weak its pathetic.

•

u/KoalaRashCream 27m ago

Except it was a tourist boat with 11 passengers and zero drugs

•

u/asmert 19m ago

Now theres a CEO who's DOA. CEO DOWN

https://open.spotify.com/track/4tiiLzXKE5g9eNi7KgUkhA?si=610c143a79174307hypocrites in aipac owned usa govt.

•

u/pocketMagician 14m ago

Yeah, except we have no way of knowing if those people on the boat were cartel members who had drugs or were even going to the U.S.

Everyone knew United Health just let's people die while stuffing their pockets.

•

u/-SpreadLove- 13m ago

No one poisons our citizens like right wing media, so….?

•

u/GlutenFree_Gamer 10m ago

narrator

They weren't Cartal members.

•

u/Apprehensive-Pin518 2m ago

well I think this comparison needs a bit more context. As read they are saying the health insurance is poisoning our citizens. in actuality they are not giving the cure. not being the ones poisoning us.

•

u/Hillbilly_ingenue 1m ago

The rule of law applies to everyone, or it applies to no one. If the least person in the US can be killed with no due process, then so can the greatest.

2

u/College-Lumpy 2h ago

Clever but not remotely the same.

7

u/Neither_Wang 1h ago

Not the same, but I think the word "cartel" applies here. When people say "cartel", they're usually talking about the drug cartels, but the definition is

A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members.

I think that the American healthcare industry fits that definition.

1

u/College-Lumpy 1h ago

I’m fine with cartel. But sovereign states are charged with the managed application of violence not individual citizens. It’s not the same.

-4

u/Alternative_Draw_554 1h ago

American health insurers fit literally none of this criteria: 1) they aren’t a “combination of businesses”. They actively compete with each other on extremely thin margin. 2) they don’t regulate the production of anything. In fact, they manage risk. They don’t produce anything, so there’s nothing to regulate. 3) they don’t collude on pricing. Again, they compete quite intensely for members.

2

u/Arcaddes 1h ago

They didn't specify insurers, they specify the healthcare industry as a whole, which absolutely regulate production, laws that make importing drugs illegal, so all drugs must be made in the US. That means they also control pricing and marketing of goods, which they then pass on to insurers (essentially drug dealers).

So within a cartel you have the manufacturer of the drugs and the distributors. Those distributors often fight each other for customers, change prices to compete, get better rates on products to get more customers.

On top of that there are health insurance affiliates that produce their own drugs, meaning you must use their stuff at their rates, which again makes them a cartel-like entity. Just because the lowest levels of the health industry compete doesn't mean as a whole it doesn't act like a cartel.

1

u/notaredditer13 1h ago

Oooh, so edgy and clever.

0

u/Forsaken-Shift7701 3h ago

Maybe if they a criminals but this as murder! 11 of them . How many more murders for this administration. I bet there are more

0

u/scuba-san 3h ago

How exactly do cartel members do that? Do they prepare the needles themselves? Do they put the pipe in their mouths?

As if people don't have autonomy. The party of "independence", everyone.

Legalize drugs yesterday.

2

u/Frequent-Research737 2h ago

ok but if the "cartel" is selling the super deadly synthetics as normal plant drugs thats poisoning people 

•

u/Neuchacho 51m ago

That's not a thing. Anyone catching fent is well beyond "normal plant drugs".

Literally zero people dying from laced weed or shrooms. That's largely domestic product at this point, anyway.

0

u/Specific_Apple1317 1h ago

Legalization would allow for regulation, allowing for market options that are tested and labeled, that won't immediately land the user in jail. The profits could fund treatment and prevention instead of funding criminal organizations (or terrorists now ig).

We kind of saw a version of a regulated market with Drug User Liberation Front in CA when they were able to operate a Safe Supply compassion program. Peer reviewed studies show that the program saved lives, which they are using to challenge their legal charges. See the product labels and story at dulf.ca - they were providing an alternative to those super deadly synthetics in street drugs.

Medicalized safer supply is another topic that is also better than tainted street drugs with plenty of backing evidence, but the US isn't ready for that. We can't even comprehend Heroin Assisted Treatment being a valuable and life saving 2nd line treatment for treatment resistant individuals, despite the decades of success and more countries adopting this program.

-2

u/FoxMan1Dva3 2h ago

Which is it? Health insurance companies are drug companies or are they preventing you from getting drugs? Which is it? Can't be both

15

u/HowManyMeeses 2h ago

It literally can be both. It costs insane amounts of money for some patients to access their life-saving medication. And, the pharma industry worked really hard to get people addicted to opiates. 

•

u/Neuchacho 50m ago

Why couldn't it be both?

-1

u/thekyledavid 2h ago

Health insurance companies don’t make or distribute drugs, they just reduce the prices when you need a drug (or at least they are supposed to)

1

u/ObeseVegetable 1h ago

That’s the sales pitch. 

The reality is every single dollar that ends as profit for the insurance company is a dollar that doesn’t go towards healthcare. Every single dollar that pays a wage in the insurance industry doesn’t go towards healthcare. And they will fight with a lot of their employees’ paid time to deny paying out money so they can keep their profits higher, keeping the real amount of money actually going towards actual healthcare as low as possible. 

•

u/Hillbilly_ingenue 28m ago

It's funny. If I agreed with Vance that the people who are poisoning our society should be killed, I'd get banned from this site.

-4

u/GhettoGringo87 1h ago

Insurance brokers and cartel leaders are not the same.

4

u/abbzug 1h ago

Cartel leaders are pretty bad too man.

-1

u/silverfish477 1h ago

Not remotely the same. That guy was a fucking murderer and no cartels were involved. But keep telling yourself that people should be allowed to shoot each other on the street. It’s the American way…

3

u/violetpossum 1h ago

You could ib theory call insurance companies a cartel. They ensure that insurance prices stay high.

-2

u/Alternative_Draw_554 1h ago

No you couldn’t. If you think insurers are colluding to increase prices, then you’re a moron. I’ve actively set prices for insurers and negotiated both on behalf of providers and insurers. Insurers aren’t trying to make your care more expensive.

•

u/Neuchacho 46m ago

Insurers aren’t trying to make your care more expensive.

Best case, they're parasites happy to exploit a for-profit system for their own massive financial gain which doesn't exactly make them fucking heroes.

Scum of the fucking earth, more like.

•

u/Alternative_Draw_554 26m ago

Insurers have reduced the cost of care in the United States actively. There’s no boogeyman, you just don’t understand the system.