Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset2

like 0

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?" ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)" ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo" ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?" ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?" ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking" ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?" ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?", ">\n\nYou’ve asked that question twice now as if your not likely completely surrounded by art right now that either you or someone else likely payed for.\nLet’s assume your in your bedroom,\nCurtains (art)\nBedding (art)\nDo you have a phone case? Like has art on it. \nAny packaging of any kind anywhere in sight? (Art) \nOf course any art on the walls…\nWallpaper? (Art) \nThen there’s the less obvious ones you might not even notice. \nDresser? designed by an carpenter (art)\nThe phone your holding? Designed meticulously (art)\nLiterally any other devise at all? All designed (art) \nIs your ceiling flat? Or does it have a texture? Guess what that’s art. \nThe ui your looking at right now here on Reddit? All designed (art) \nAll our Reddit avatars. (Art)\nAny other website at all (art) \nThe point is you could literally do whatever you wanted with it including selling it. Claiming you created it, or whatever else. Basically if you benefit in some way from AI generated art when you are not an artist and didn’t create that thing then it’s wrong. There are thousands of talented artists out there who would love to design something personally for you." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?", ">\n\nYou’ve asked that question twice now as if your not likely completely surrounded by art right now that either you or someone else likely payed for.\nLet’s assume your in your bedroom,\nCurtains (art)\nBedding (art)\nDo you have a phone case? Like has art on it. \nAny packaging of any kind anywhere in sight? (Art) \nOf course any art on the walls…\nWallpaper? (Art) \nThen there’s the less obvious ones you might not even notice. \nDresser? designed by an carpenter (art)\nThe phone your holding? Designed meticulously (art)\nLiterally any other devise at all? All designed (art) \nIs your ceiling flat? Or does it have a texture? Guess what that’s art. \nThe ui your looking at right now here on Reddit? All designed (art) \nAll our Reddit avatars. (Art)\nAny other website at all (art) \nThe point is you could literally do whatever you wanted with it including selling it. Claiming you created it, or whatever else. Basically if you benefit in some way from AI generated art when you are not an artist and didn’t create that thing then it’s wrong. There are thousands of talented artists out there who would love to design something personally for you.", ">\n\nWhy not? China did." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?", ">\n\nYou’ve asked that question twice now as if your not likely completely surrounded by art right now that either you or someone else likely payed for.\nLet’s assume your in your bedroom,\nCurtains (art)\nBedding (art)\nDo you have a phone case? Like has art on it. \nAny packaging of any kind anywhere in sight? (Art) \nOf course any art on the walls…\nWallpaper? (Art) \nThen there’s the less obvious ones you might not even notice. \nDresser? designed by an carpenter (art)\nThe phone your holding? Designed meticulously (art)\nLiterally any other devise at all? All designed (art) \nIs your ceiling flat? Or does it have a texture? Guess what that’s art. \nThe ui your looking at right now here on Reddit? All designed (art) \nAll our Reddit avatars. (Art)\nAny other website at all (art) \nThe point is you could literally do whatever you wanted with it including selling it. Claiming you created it, or whatever else. Basically if you benefit in some way from AI generated art when you are not an artist and didn’t create that thing then it’s wrong. There are thousands of talented artists out there who would love to design something personally for you.", ">\n\nWhy not? China did.", ">\n\nNot in China lol. Why is this like a free speech issue for you?" ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?", ">\n\nYou’ve asked that question twice now as if your not likely completely surrounded by art right now that either you or someone else likely payed for.\nLet’s assume your in your bedroom,\nCurtains (art)\nBedding (art)\nDo you have a phone case? Like has art on it. \nAny packaging of any kind anywhere in sight? (Art) \nOf course any art on the walls…\nWallpaper? (Art) \nThen there’s the less obvious ones you might not even notice. \nDresser? designed by an carpenter (art)\nThe phone your holding? Designed meticulously (art)\nLiterally any other devise at all? All designed (art) \nIs your ceiling flat? Or does it have a texture? Guess what that’s art. \nThe ui your looking at right now here on Reddit? All designed (art) \nAll our Reddit avatars. (Art)\nAny other website at all (art) \nThe point is you could literally do whatever you wanted with it including selling it. Claiming you created it, or whatever else. Basically if you benefit in some way from AI generated art when you are not an artist and didn’t create that thing then it’s wrong. There are thousands of talented artists out there who would love to design something personally for you.", ">\n\nWhy not? China did.", ">\n\nNot in China lol. Why is this like a free speech issue for you?", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nAs many other things that are legal, so what is the point in banning AI generated media? You do realize that we already have shit produced based on text-to-speech and shutterstock, so what exactly AI changes? Using AI will result in, at best, marginal increase in producing shitty media of \"clickbait-and-forget\" flavor.\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nHow? Value is not derived from how much hours you put into a media piece but rather how good you are at creating that media piece. AI generation will be just another tool that creators can use to work less while producing quality content.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nThis point does not make sense, AI generation is not automated - AI does not think, is not creative, it needs human input, a direction in which it has to go and human needs to decide when/which output is acceptable. \nI have a growing suspicion that you don't really understand how AI works.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nAI does not misunderstand anything, it understands topic exactly as it is taught. F.ex. current AI image generators are limited to not produce certain content and they don't.\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nWhy? It produces what you tell it to produce. Why do you believe that if I tell it specifically to produce \"counter-popular media\" it will not produce it? AI does what is ordered, it does not think.\nSeriously, do you have any inclination on how AI works? Cause most of your point are applicable to some hypothetical s-f AI that we are nowhere close to be created. And if that AI becomes reality then AI media will be least of our concerns." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?", ">\n\nYou’ve asked that question twice now as if your not likely completely surrounded by art right now that either you or someone else likely payed for.\nLet’s assume your in your bedroom,\nCurtains (art)\nBedding (art)\nDo you have a phone case? Like has art on it. \nAny packaging of any kind anywhere in sight? (Art) \nOf course any art on the walls…\nWallpaper? (Art) \nThen there’s the less obvious ones you might not even notice. \nDresser? designed by an carpenter (art)\nThe phone your holding? Designed meticulously (art)\nLiterally any other devise at all? All designed (art) \nIs your ceiling flat? Or does it have a texture? Guess what that’s art. \nThe ui your looking at right now here on Reddit? All designed (art) \nAll our Reddit avatars. (Art)\nAny other website at all (art) \nThe point is you could literally do whatever you wanted with it including selling it. Claiming you created it, or whatever else. Basically if you benefit in some way from AI generated art when you are not an artist and didn’t create that thing then it’s wrong. There are thousands of talented artists out there who would love to design something personally for you.", ">\n\nWhy not? China did.", ">\n\nNot in China lol. Why is this like a free speech issue for you?", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nAs many other things that are legal, so what is the point in banning AI generated media? You do realize that we already have shit produced based on text-to-speech and shutterstock, so what exactly AI changes? Using AI will result in, at best, marginal increase in producing shitty media of \"clickbait-and-forget\" flavor.\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nHow? Value is not derived from how much hours you put into a media piece but rather how good you are at creating that media piece. AI generation will be just another tool that creators can use to work less while producing quality content.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nThis point does not make sense, AI generation is not automated - AI does not think, is not creative, it needs human input, a direction in which it has to go and human needs to decide when/which output is acceptable. \nI have a growing suspicion that you don't really understand how AI works.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nAI does not misunderstand anything, it understands topic exactly as it is taught. F.ex. current AI image generators are limited to not produce certain content and they don't.\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nWhy? It produces what you tell it to produce. Why do you believe that if I tell it specifically to produce \"counter-popular media\" it will not produce it? AI does what is ordered, it does not think.\nSeriously, do you have any inclination on how AI works? Cause most of your point are applicable to some hypothetical s-f AI that we are nowhere close to be created. And if that AI becomes reality then AI media will be least of our concerns.", ">\n\n1) Shit posting is bad but auto shit posting is devastating to the platform. People will stop using it if they have to dig through so much.\n2) I don't see how you can say AI is a tool. Like me typing a prompt to chatGPT is creating. Seems more like handing your homework over to an auto correct bot.\n3) Maybe that's true? I've seen the AI generated fake news clips, face overlays, bot comments, b role footage, chatGPT generated scripts, and t-shirt sale sites. It doesn't seem necessary for a person to have any sort of influence of the content. All of the popular uses of it now all include human input, but there are several avenues that are abusing the hell out of ai auto generated content.\n4) I've receded this point as I understand you can program a AI to get counter opinions to any topic. Do I reward the guy that changed my opinion on that?\n5) I understand that this point is a moral argument, but it it important that we not drown out our own original ideas for the sake of cashing in easy to produce content for money." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?", ">\n\nYou’ve asked that question twice now as if your not likely completely surrounded by art right now that either you or someone else likely payed for.\nLet’s assume your in your bedroom,\nCurtains (art)\nBedding (art)\nDo you have a phone case? Like has art on it. \nAny packaging of any kind anywhere in sight? (Art) \nOf course any art on the walls…\nWallpaper? (Art) \nThen there’s the less obvious ones you might not even notice. \nDresser? designed by an carpenter (art)\nThe phone your holding? Designed meticulously (art)\nLiterally any other devise at all? All designed (art) \nIs your ceiling flat? Or does it have a texture? Guess what that’s art. \nThe ui your looking at right now here on Reddit? All designed (art) \nAll our Reddit avatars. (Art)\nAny other website at all (art) \nThe point is you could literally do whatever you wanted with it including selling it. Claiming you created it, or whatever else. Basically if you benefit in some way from AI generated art when you are not an artist and didn’t create that thing then it’s wrong. There are thousands of talented artists out there who would love to design something personally for you.", ">\n\nWhy not? China did.", ">\n\nNot in China lol. Why is this like a free speech issue for you?", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nAs many other things that are legal, so what is the point in banning AI generated media? You do realize that we already have shit produced based on text-to-speech and shutterstock, so what exactly AI changes? Using AI will result in, at best, marginal increase in producing shitty media of \"clickbait-and-forget\" flavor.\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nHow? Value is not derived from how much hours you put into a media piece but rather how good you are at creating that media piece. AI generation will be just another tool that creators can use to work less while producing quality content.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nThis point does not make sense, AI generation is not automated - AI does not think, is not creative, it needs human input, a direction in which it has to go and human needs to decide when/which output is acceptable. \nI have a growing suspicion that you don't really understand how AI works.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nAI does not misunderstand anything, it understands topic exactly as it is taught. F.ex. current AI image generators are limited to not produce certain content and they don't.\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nWhy? It produces what you tell it to produce. Why do you believe that if I tell it specifically to produce \"counter-popular media\" it will not produce it? AI does what is ordered, it does not think.\nSeriously, do you have any inclination on how AI works? Cause most of your point are applicable to some hypothetical s-f AI that we are nowhere close to be created. And if that AI becomes reality then AI media will be least of our concerns.", ">\n\n1) Shit posting is bad but auto shit posting is devastating to the platform. People will stop using it if they have to dig through so much.\n2) I don't see how you can say AI is a tool. Like me typing a prompt to chatGPT is creating. Seems more like handing your homework over to an auto correct bot.\n3) Maybe that's true? I've seen the AI generated fake news clips, face overlays, bot comments, b role footage, chatGPT generated scripts, and t-shirt sale sites. It doesn't seem necessary for a person to have any sort of influence of the content. All of the popular uses of it now all include human input, but there are several avenues that are abusing the hell out of ai auto generated content.\n4) I've receded this point as I understand you can program a AI to get counter opinions to any topic. Do I reward the guy that changed my opinion on that?\n5) I understand that this point is a moral argument, but it it important that we not drown out our own original ideas for the sake of cashing in easy to produce content for money.", ">\n\nHow do you define \"AI-generated media\"? How much of the image does it need to generate for it to be considered AI-generated? Is touching up photos okay? Fixing missing portions? Recreating objects? \nWhere does the \"media\" start and end? Can we use it for scientific purposes, where the media could be data or image on a journal?\nThere's no line that can be drawn, so a line shouldn't be drawn. You cannot make it illegal." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?", ">\n\nYou’ve asked that question twice now as if your not likely completely surrounded by art right now that either you or someone else likely payed for.\nLet’s assume your in your bedroom,\nCurtains (art)\nBedding (art)\nDo you have a phone case? Like has art on it. \nAny packaging of any kind anywhere in sight? (Art) \nOf course any art on the walls…\nWallpaper? (Art) \nThen there’s the less obvious ones you might not even notice. \nDresser? designed by an carpenter (art)\nThe phone your holding? Designed meticulously (art)\nLiterally any other devise at all? All designed (art) \nIs your ceiling flat? Or does it have a texture? Guess what that’s art. \nThe ui your looking at right now here on Reddit? All designed (art) \nAll our Reddit avatars. (Art)\nAny other website at all (art) \nThe point is you could literally do whatever you wanted with it including selling it. Claiming you created it, or whatever else. Basically if you benefit in some way from AI generated art when you are not an artist and didn’t create that thing then it’s wrong. There are thousands of talented artists out there who would love to design something personally for you.", ">\n\nWhy not? China did.", ">\n\nNot in China lol. Why is this like a free speech issue for you?", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nAs many other things that are legal, so what is the point in banning AI generated media? You do realize that we already have shit produced based on text-to-speech and shutterstock, so what exactly AI changes? Using AI will result in, at best, marginal increase in producing shitty media of \"clickbait-and-forget\" flavor.\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nHow? Value is not derived from how much hours you put into a media piece but rather how good you are at creating that media piece. AI generation will be just another tool that creators can use to work less while producing quality content.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nThis point does not make sense, AI generation is not automated - AI does not think, is not creative, it needs human input, a direction in which it has to go and human needs to decide when/which output is acceptable. \nI have a growing suspicion that you don't really understand how AI works.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nAI does not misunderstand anything, it understands topic exactly as it is taught. F.ex. current AI image generators are limited to not produce certain content and they don't.\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nWhy? It produces what you tell it to produce. Why do you believe that if I tell it specifically to produce \"counter-popular media\" it will not produce it? AI does what is ordered, it does not think.\nSeriously, do you have any inclination on how AI works? Cause most of your point are applicable to some hypothetical s-f AI that we are nowhere close to be created. And if that AI becomes reality then AI media will be least of our concerns.", ">\n\n1) Shit posting is bad but auto shit posting is devastating to the platform. People will stop using it if they have to dig through so much.\n2) I don't see how you can say AI is a tool. Like me typing a prompt to chatGPT is creating. Seems more like handing your homework over to an auto correct bot.\n3) Maybe that's true? I've seen the AI generated fake news clips, face overlays, bot comments, b role footage, chatGPT generated scripts, and t-shirt sale sites. It doesn't seem necessary for a person to have any sort of influence of the content. All of the popular uses of it now all include human input, but there are several avenues that are abusing the hell out of ai auto generated content.\n4) I've receded this point as I understand you can program a AI to get counter opinions to any topic. Do I reward the guy that changed my opinion on that?\n5) I understand that this point is a moral argument, but it it important that we not drown out our own original ideas for the sake of cashing in easy to produce content for money.", ">\n\nHow do you define \"AI-generated media\"? How much of the image does it need to generate for it to be considered AI-generated? Is touching up photos okay? Fixing missing portions? Recreating objects? \nWhere does the \"media\" start and end? Can we use it for scientific purposes, where the media could be data or image on a journal?\nThere's no line that can be drawn, so a line shouldn't be drawn. You cannot make it illegal.", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product? \n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand? \n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nPeople will still pay for human made designs if they want to. They do it right now, people can buy bowls from a company that mass produces them, or pay for the hand made 'rustic' bowls. \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify? \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nIt can produce whatever people want it to." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?", ">\n\nYou’ve asked that question twice now as if your not likely completely surrounded by art right now that either you or someone else likely payed for.\nLet’s assume your in your bedroom,\nCurtains (art)\nBedding (art)\nDo you have a phone case? Like has art on it. \nAny packaging of any kind anywhere in sight? (Art) \nOf course any art on the walls…\nWallpaper? (Art) \nThen there’s the less obvious ones you might not even notice. \nDresser? designed by an carpenter (art)\nThe phone your holding? Designed meticulously (art)\nLiterally any other devise at all? All designed (art) \nIs your ceiling flat? Or does it have a texture? Guess what that’s art. \nThe ui your looking at right now here on Reddit? All designed (art) \nAll our Reddit avatars. (Art)\nAny other website at all (art) \nThe point is you could literally do whatever you wanted with it including selling it. Claiming you created it, or whatever else. Basically if you benefit in some way from AI generated art when you are not an artist and didn’t create that thing then it’s wrong. There are thousands of talented artists out there who would love to design something personally for you.", ">\n\nWhy not? China did.", ">\n\nNot in China lol. Why is this like a free speech issue for you?", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nAs many other things that are legal, so what is the point in banning AI generated media? You do realize that we already have shit produced based on text-to-speech and shutterstock, so what exactly AI changes? Using AI will result in, at best, marginal increase in producing shitty media of \"clickbait-and-forget\" flavor.\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nHow? Value is not derived from how much hours you put into a media piece but rather how good you are at creating that media piece. AI generation will be just another tool that creators can use to work less while producing quality content.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nThis point does not make sense, AI generation is not automated - AI does not think, is not creative, it needs human input, a direction in which it has to go and human needs to decide when/which output is acceptable. \nI have a growing suspicion that you don't really understand how AI works.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nAI does not misunderstand anything, it understands topic exactly as it is taught. F.ex. current AI image generators are limited to not produce certain content and they don't.\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nWhy? It produces what you tell it to produce. Why do you believe that if I tell it specifically to produce \"counter-popular media\" it will not produce it? AI does what is ordered, it does not think.\nSeriously, do you have any inclination on how AI works? Cause most of your point are applicable to some hypothetical s-f AI that we are nowhere close to be created. And if that AI becomes reality then AI media will be least of our concerns.", ">\n\n1) Shit posting is bad but auto shit posting is devastating to the platform. People will stop using it if they have to dig through so much.\n2) I don't see how you can say AI is a tool. Like me typing a prompt to chatGPT is creating. Seems more like handing your homework over to an auto correct bot.\n3) Maybe that's true? I've seen the AI generated fake news clips, face overlays, bot comments, b role footage, chatGPT generated scripts, and t-shirt sale sites. It doesn't seem necessary for a person to have any sort of influence of the content. All of the popular uses of it now all include human input, but there are several avenues that are abusing the hell out of ai auto generated content.\n4) I've receded this point as I understand you can program a AI to get counter opinions to any topic. Do I reward the guy that changed my opinion on that?\n5) I understand that this point is a moral argument, but it it important that we not drown out our own original ideas for the sake of cashing in easy to produce content for money.", ">\n\nHow do you define \"AI-generated media\"? How much of the image does it need to generate for it to be considered AI-generated? Is touching up photos okay? Fixing missing portions? Recreating objects? \nWhere does the \"media\" start and end? Can we use it for scientific purposes, where the media could be data or image on a journal?\nThere's no line that can be drawn, so a line shouldn't be drawn. You cannot make it illegal.", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product? \n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand? \n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nPeople will still pay for human made designs if they want to. They do it right now, people can buy bowls from a company that mass produces them, or pay for the hand made 'rustic' bowls. \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify? \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nIt can produce whatever people want it to.", ">\n\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product?\n\nIt's not about forcing anything? It's about making it available at least. You do not have the freedom to choose it, if it's not available. \n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand?\n\nAt a certain point, the tool is no longer a tool, but the creator. When I use photo shop, I understand the result of what I'm doing. \n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify?\n\nYeah, I mean like how Nazism and nudity make it to top of Google images. The search engine confuses quality results with inflammatory. I guess you can argue popular news outlets do this too." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?", ">\n\nYou’ve asked that question twice now as if your not likely completely surrounded by art right now that either you or someone else likely payed for.\nLet’s assume your in your bedroom,\nCurtains (art)\nBedding (art)\nDo you have a phone case? Like has art on it. \nAny packaging of any kind anywhere in sight? (Art) \nOf course any art on the walls…\nWallpaper? (Art) \nThen there’s the less obvious ones you might not even notice. \nDresser? designed by an carpenter (art)\nThe phone your holding? Designed meticulously (art)\nLiterally any other devise at all? All designed (art) \nIs your ceiling flat? Or does it have a texture? Guess what that’s art. \nThe ui your looking at right now here on Reddit? All designed (art) \nAll our Reddit avatars. (Art)\nAny other website at all (art) \nThe point is you could literally do whatever you wanted with it including selling it. Claiming you created it, or whatever else. Basically if you benefit in some way from AI generated art when you are not an artist and didn’t create that thing then it’s wrong. There are thousands of talented artists out there who would love to design something personally for you.", ">\n\nWhy not? China did.", ">\n\nNot in China lol. Why is this like a free speech issue for you?", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nAs many other things that are legal, so what is the point in banning AI generated media? You do realize that we already have shit produced based on text-to-speech and shutterstock, so what exactly AI changes? Using AI will result in, at best, marginal increase in producing shitty media of \"clickbait-and-forget\" flavor.\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nHow? Value is not derived from how much hours you put into a media piece but rather how good you are at creating that media piece. AI generation will be just another tool that creators can use to work less while producing quality content.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nThis point does not make sense, AI generation is not automated - AI does not think, is not creative, it needs human input, a direction in which it has to go and human needs to decide when/which output is acceptable. \nI have a growing suspicion that you don't really understand how AI works.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nAI does not misunderstand anything, it understands topic exactly as it is taught. F.ex. current AI image generators are limited to not produce certain content and they don't.\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nWhy? It produces what you tell it to produce. Why do you believe that if I tell it specifically to produce \"counter-popular media\" it will not produce it? AI does what is ordered, it does not think.\nSeriously, do you have any inclination on how AI works? Cause most of your point are applicable to some hypothetical s-f AI that we are nowhere close to be created. And if that AI becomes reality then AI media will be least of our concerns.", ">\n\n1) Shit posting is bad but auto shit posting is devastating to the platform. People will stop using it if they have to dig through so much.\n2) I don't see how you can say AI is a tool. Like me typing a prompt to chatGPT is creating. Seems more like handing your homework over to an auto correct bot.\n3) Maybe that's true? I've seen the AI generated fake news clips, face overlays, bot comments, b role footage, chatGPT generated scripts, and t-shirt sale sites. It doesn't seem necessary for a person to have any sort of influence of the content. All of the popular uses of it now all include human input, but there are several avenues that are abusing the hell out of ai auto generated content.\n4) I've receded this point as I understand you can program a AI to get counter opinions to any topic. Do I reward the guy that changed my opinion on that?\n5) I understand that this point is a moral argument, but it it important that we not drown out our own original ideas for the sake of cashing in easy to produce content for money.", ">\n\nHow do you define \"AI-generated media\"? How much of the image does it need to generate for it to be considered AI-generated? Is touching up photos okay? Fixing missing portions? Recreating objects? \nWhere does the \"media\" start and end? Can we use it for scientific purposes, where the media could be data or image on a journal?\nThere's no line that can be drawn, so a line shouldn't be drawn. You cannot make it illegal.", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product? \n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand? \n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nPeople will still pay for human made designs if they want to. They do it right now, people can buy bowls from a company that mass produces them, or pay for the hand made 'rustic' bowls. \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify? \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nIt can produce whatever people want it to.", ">\n\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product?\n\nIt's not about forcing anything? It's about making it available at least. You do not have the freedom to choose it, if it's not available. \n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand?\n\nAt a certain point, the tool is no longer a tool, but the creator. When I use photo shop, I understand the result of what I'm doing. \n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify?\n\nYeah, I mean like how Nazism and nudity make it to top of Google images. The search engine confuses quality results with inflammatory. I guess you can argue popular news outlets do this too.", ">\n\nThe most compelling argument in principle is of AI content actually caused significant job loss. But I think this is a tough sell, because content generation isn't actually a major source of jobs. I think it was a tweet and can't remember exactly, but I recall someone recently pointing out that if literally all illustrator jobs were eliminated, that wouldn't actually be that massive of an impact to the overall labor pool. If we want to worry about lost jobs, we should be a lot more concerned about service industry stuff.\nBut I also think a lot of your points are kind of at cross purposes. You make a lot of arguments as to how genuine human made stuff is actually better in some ways, but if that's true and that's what people want, you don't need to make anything illegal. Make websites that don't allow AI generated content. If it's good, there's a business opportunity there for \"artisan\" content that should be able to compete to some degree with AI stuff. But if it's not true that the human made stuff has added value, then it becomes less clear that there's an actual problem here.\n\nIt is important for society to constantly be able to evolve and improve itself, however for a culture to move forward it has to be exposed by counter-thinking citizens. If the media of a culture is self-perpetuating it's own culture in mass, it will not be able to expose itself of it's own flaws and improve.\n\nI guess I'm not sure why you think AI can't do this in principle. I think it's true that current AI models aren't really trying to do this, but I don't see any reason why you think this is fundamentally out of reach from AI. I'm not sure if this part of your view is pessimism around what AI can do, or it's just overly optimistic about what humans can do. Point is, when humans do \"counter-thinking\", I think you might be attributing something magical to this that isn't really there, where it seems more likely that whatever humans are doing when they create \"counter-popular\" stuff could be taught to an AI, probably more easily than you think." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?", ">\n\nYou’ve asked that question twice now as if your not likely completely surrounded by art right now that either you or someone else likely payed for.\nLet’s assume your in your bedroom,\nCurtains (art)\nBedding (art)\nDo you have a phone case? Like has art on it. \nAny packaging of any kind anywhere in sight? (Art) \nOf course any art on the walls…\nWallpaper? (Art) \nThen there’s the less obvious ones you might not even notice. \nDresser? designed by an carpenter (art)\nThe phone your holding? Designed meticulously (art)\nLiterally any other devise at all? All designed (art) \nIs your ceiling flat? Or does it have a texture? Guess what that’s art. \nThe ui your looking at right now here on Reddit? All designed (art) \nAll our Reddit avatars. (Art)\nAny other website at all (art) \nThe point is you could literally do whatever you wanted with it including selling it. Claiming you created it, or whatever else. Basically if you benefit in some way from AI generated art when you are not an artist and didn’t create that thing then it’s wrong. There are thousands of talented artists out there who would love to design something personally for you.", ">\n\nWhy not? China did.", ">\n\nNot in China lol. Why is this like a free speech issue for you?", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nAs many other things that are legal, so what is the point in banning AI generated media? You do realize that we already have shit produced based on text-to-speech and shutterstock, so what exactly AI changes? Using AI will result in, at best, marginal increase in producing shitty media of \"clickbait-and-forget\" flavor.\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nHow? Value is not derived from how much hours you put into a media piece but rather how good you are at creating that media piece. AI generation will be just another tool that creators can use to work less while producing quality content.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nThis point does not make sense, AI generation is not automated - AI does not think, is not creative, it needs human input, a direction in which it has to go and human needs to decide when/which output is acceptable. \nI have a growing suspicion that you don't really understand how AI works.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nAI does not misunderstand anything, it understands topic exactly as it is taught. F.ex. current AI image generators are limited to not produce certain content and they don't.\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nWhy? It produces what you tell it to produce. Why do you believe that if I tell it specifically to produce \"counter-popular media\" it will not produce it? AI does what is ordered, it does not think.\nSeriously, do you have any inclination on how AI works? Cause most of your point are applicable to some hypothetical s-f AI that we are nowhere close to be created. And if that AI becomes reality then AI media will be least of our concerns.", ">\n\n1) Shit posting is bad but auto shit posting is devastating to the platform. People will stop using it if they have to dig through so much.\n2) I don't see how you can say AI is a tool. Like me typing a prompt to chatGPT is creating. Seems more like handing your homework over to an auto correct bot.\n3) Maybe that's true? I've seen the AI generated fake news clips, face overlays, bot comments, b role footage, chatGPT generated scripts, and t-shirt sale sites. It doesn't seem necessary for a person to have any sort of influence of the content. All of the popular uses of it now all include human input, but there are several avenues that are abusing the hell out of ai auto generated content.\n4) I've receded this point as I understand you can program a AI to get counter opinions to any topic. Do I reward the guy that changed my opinion on that?\n5) I understand that this point is a moral argument, but it it important that we not drown out our own original ideas for the sake of cashing in easy to produce content for money.", ">\n\nHow do you define \"AI-generated media\"? How much of the image does it need to generate for it to be considered AI-generated? Is touching up photos okay? Fixing missing portions? Recreating objects? \nWhere does the \"media\" start and end? Can we use it for scientific purposes, where the media could be data or image on a journal?\nThere's no line that can be drawn, so a line shouldn't be drawn. You cannot make it illegal.", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product? \n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand? \n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nPeople will still pay for human made designs if they want to. They do it right now, people can buy bowls from a company that mass produces them, or pay for the hand made 'rustic' bowls. \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify? \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nIt can produce whatever people want it to.", ">\n\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product?\n\nIt's not about forcing anything? It's about making it available at least. You do not have the freedom to choose it, if it's not available. \n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand?\n\nAt a certain point, the tool is no longer a tool, but the creator. When I use photo shop, I understand the result of what I'm doing. \n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify?\n\nYeah, I mean like how Nazism and nudity make it to top of Google images. The search engine confuses quality results with inflammatory. I guess you can argue popular news outlets do this too.", ">\n\nThe most compelling argument in principle is of AI content actually caused significant job loss. But I think this is a tough sell, because content generation isn't actually a major source of jobs. I think it was a tweet and can't remember exactly, but I recall someone recently pointing out that if literally all illustrator jobs were eliminated, that wouldn't actually be that massive of an impact to the overall labor pool. If we want to worry about lost jobs, we should be a lot more concerned about service industry stuff.\nBut I also think a lot of your points are kind of at cross purposes. You make a lot of arguments as to how genuine human made stuff is actually better in some ways, but if that's true and that's what people want, you don't need to make anything illegal. Make websites that don't allow AI generated content. If it's good, there's a business opportunity there for \"artisan\" content that should be able to compete to some degree with AI stuff. But if it's not true that the human made stuff has added value, then it becomes less clear that there's an actual problem here.\n\nIt is important for society to constantly be able to evolve and improve itself, however for a culture to move forward it has to be exposed by counter-thinking citizens. If the media of a culture is self-perpetuating it's own culture in mass, it will not be able to expose itself of it's own flaws and improve.\n\nI guess I'm not sure why you think AI can't do this in principle. I think it's true that current AI models aren't really trying to do this, but I don't see any reason why you think this is fundamentally out of reach from AI. I'm not sure if this part of your view is pessimism around what AI can do, or it's just overly optimistic about what humans can do. Point is, when humans do \"counter-thinking\", I think you might be attributing something magical to this that isn't really there, where it seems more likely that whatever humans are doing when they create \"counter-popular\" stuff could be taught to an AI, probably more easily than you think.", ">\n\nBased on your points, what's is your consideration of AI being the typewriter and not replacing the typist? Ai will be used by creatives to make unique/speed up production of existing art. They will not be replaced." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?", ">\n\nYou’ve asked that question twice now as if your not likely completely surrounded by art right now that either you or someone else likely payed for.\nLet’s assume your in your bedroom,\nCurtains (art)\nBedding (art)\nDo you have a phone case? Like has art on it. \nAny packaging of any kind anywhere in sight? (Art) \nOf course any art on the walls…\nWallpaper? (Art) \nThen there’s the less obvious ones you might not even notice. \nDresser? designed by an carpenter (art)\nThe phone your holding? Designed meticulously (art)\nLiterally any other devise at all? All designed (art) \nIs your ceiling flat? Or does it have a texture? Guess what that’s art. \nThe ui your looking at right now here on Reddit? All designed (art) \nAll our Reddit avatars. (Art)\nAny other website at all (art) \nThe point is you could literally do whatever you wanted with it including selling it. Claiming you created it, or whatever else. Basically if you benefit in some way from AI generated art when you are not an artist and didn’t create that thing then it’s wrong. There are thousands of talented artists out there who would love to design something personally for you.", ">\n\nWhy not? China did.", ">\n\nNot in China lol. Why is this like a free speech issue for you?", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nAs many other things that are legal, so what is the point in banning AI generated media? You do realize that we already have shit produced based on text-to-speech and shutterstock, so what exactly AI changes? Using AI will result in, at best, marginal increase in producing shitty media of \"clickbait-and-forget\" flavor.\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nHow? Value is not derived from how much hours you put into a media piece but rather how good you are at creating that media piece. AI generation will be just another tool that creators can use to work less while producing quality content.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nThis point does not make sense, AI generation is not automated - AI does not think, is not creative, it needs human input, a direction in which it has to go and human needs to decide when/which output is acceptable. \nI have a growing suspicion that you don't really understand how AI works.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nAI does not misunderstand anything, it understands topic exactly as it is taught. F.ex. current AI image generators are limited to not produce certain content and they don't.\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nWhy? It produces what you tell it to produce. Why do you believe that if I tell it specifically to produce \"counter-popular media\" it will not produce it? AI does what is ordered, it does not think.\nSeriously, do you have any inclination on how AI works? Cause most of your point are applicable to some hypothetical s-f AI that we are nowhere close to be created. And if that AI becomes reality then AI media will be least of our concerns.", ">\n\n1) Shit posting is bad but auto shit posting is devastating to the platform. People will stop using it if they have to dig through so much.\n2) I don't see how you can say AI is a tool. Like me typing a prompt to chatGPT is creating. Seems more like handing your homework over to an auto correct bot.\n3) Maybe that's true? I've seen the AI generated fake news clips, face overlays, bot comments, b role footage, chatGPT generated scripts, and t-shirt sale sites. It doesn't seem necessary for a person to have any sort of influence of the content. All of the popular uses of it now all include human input, but there are several avenues that are abusing the hell out of ai auto generated content.\n4) I've receded this point as I understand you can program a AI to get counter opinions to any topic. Do I reward the guy that changed my opinion on that?\n5) I understand that this point is a moral argument, but it it important that we not drown out our own original ideas for the sake of cashing in easy to produce content for money.", ">\n\nHow do you define \"AI-generated media\"? How much of the image does it need to generate for it to be considered AI-generated? Is touching up photos okay? Fixing missing portions? Recreating objects? \nWhere does the \"media\" start and end? Can we use it for scientific purposes, where the media could be data or image on a journal?\nThere's no line that can be drawn, so a line shouldn't be drawn. You cannot make it illegal.", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product? \n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand? \n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nPeople will still pay for human made designs if they want to. They do it right now, people can buy bowls from a company that mass produces them, or pay for the hand made 'rustic' bowls. \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify? \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nIt can produce whatever people want it to.", ">\n\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product?\n\nIt's not about forcing anything? It's about making it available at least. You do not have the freedom to choose it, if it's not available. \n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand?\n\nAt a certain point, the tool is no longer a tool, but the creator. When I use photo shop, I understand the result of what I'm doing. \n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify?\n\nYeah, I mean like how Nazism and nudity make it to top of Google images. The search engine confuses quality results with inflammatory. I guess you can argue popular news outlets do this too.", ">\n\nThe most compelling argument in principle is of AI content actually caused significant job loss. But I think this is a tough sell, because content generation isn't actually a major source of jobs. I think it was a tweet and can't remember exactly, but I recall someone recently pointing out that if literally all illustrator jobs were eliminated, that wouldn't actually be that massive of an impact to the overall labor pool. If we want to worry about lost jobs, we should be a lot more concerned about service industry stuff.\nBut I also think a lot of your points are kind of at cross purposes. You make a lot of arguments as to how genuine human made stuff is actually better in some ways, but if that's true and that's what people want, you don't need to make anything illegal. Make websites that don't allow AI generated content. If it's good, there's a business opportunity there for \"artisan\" content that should be able to compete to some degree with AI stuff. But if it's not true that the human made stuff has added value, then it becomes less clear that there's an actual problem here.\n\nIt is important for society to constantly be able to evolve and improve itself, however for a culture to move forward it has to be exposed by counter-thinking citizens. If the media of a culture is self-perpetuating it's own culture in mass, it will not be able to expose itself of it's own flaws and improve.\n\nI guess I'm not sure why you think AI can't do this in principle. I think it's true that current AI models aren't really trying to do this, but I don't see any reason why you think this is fundamentally out of reach from AI. I'm not sure if this part of your view is pessimism around what AI can do, or it's just overly optimistic about what humans can do. Point is, when humans do \"counter-thinking\", I think you might be attributing something magical to this that isn't really there, where it seems more likely that whatever humans are doing when they create \"counter-popular\" stuff could be taught to an AI, probably more easily than you think.", ">\n\nBased on your points, what's is your consideration of AI being the typewriter and not replacing the typist? Ai will be used by creatives to make unique/speed up production of existing art. They will not be replaced.", ">\n\nI gather you're talking about content on social media platforms?\nIf Instagram and youtube, etc, wanted to ban AI generated content, wouldn't they just do that? Why do you need to get the government involved?" ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?", ">\n\nYou’ve asked that question twice now as if your not likely completely surrounded by art right now that either you or someone else likely payed for.\nLet’s assume your in your bedroom,\nCurtains (art)\nBedding (art)\nDo you have a phone case? Like has art on it. \nAny packaging of any kind anywhere in sight? (Art) \nOf course any art on the walls…\nWallpaper? (Art) \nThen there’s the less obvious ones you might not even notice. \nDresser? designed by an carpenter (art)\nThe phone your holding? Designed meticulously (art)\nLiterally any other devise at all? All designed (art) \nIs your ceiling flat? Or does it have a texture? Guess what that’s art. \nThe ui your looking at right now here on Reddit? All designed (art) \nAll our Reddit avatars. (Art)\nAny other website at all (art) \nThe point is you could literally do whatever you wanted with it including selling it. Claiming you created it, or whatever else. Basically if you benefit in some way from AI generated art when you are not an artist and didn’t create that thing then it’s wrong. There are thousands of talented artists out there who would love to design something personally for you.", ">\n\nWhy not? China did.", ">\n\nNot in China lol. Why is this like a free speech issue for you?", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nAs many other things that are legal, so what is the point in banning AI generated media? You do realize that we already have shit produced based on text-to-speech and shutterstock, so what exactly AI changes? Using AI will result in, at best, marginal increase in producing shitty media of \"clickbait-and-forget\" flavor.\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nHow? Value is not derived from how much hours you put into a media piece but rather how good you are at creating that media piece. AI generation will be just another tool that creators can use to work less while producing quality content.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nThis point does not make sense, AI generation is not automated - AI does not think, is not creative, it needs human input, a direction in which it has to go and human needs to decide when/which output is acceptable. \nI have a growing suspicion that you don't really understand how AI works.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nAI does not misunderstand anything, it understands topic exactly as it is taught. F.ex. current AI image generators are limited to not produce certain content and they don't.\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nWhy? It produces what you tell it to produce. Why do you believe that if I tell it specifically to produce \"counter-popular media\" it will not produce it? AI does what is ordered, it does not think.\nSeriously, do you have any inclination on how AI works? Cause most of your point are applicable to some hypothetical s-f AI that we are nowhere close to be created. And if that AI becomes reality then AI media will be least of our concerns.", ">\n\n1) Shit posting is bad but auto shit posting is devastating to the platform. People will stop using it if they have to dig through so much.\n2) I don't see how you can say AI is a tool. Like me typing a prompt to chatGPT is creating. Seems more like handing your homework over to an auto correct bot.\n3) Maybe that's true? I've seen the AI generated fake news clips, face overlays, bot comments, b role footage, chatGPT generated scripts, and t-shirt sale sites. It doesn't seem necessary for a person to have any sort of influence of the content. All of the popular uses of it now all include human input, but there are several avenues that are abusing the hell out of ai auto generated content.\n4) I've receded this point as I understand you can program a AI to get counter opinions to any topic. Do I reward the guy that changed my opinion on that?\n5) I understand that this point is a moral argument, but it it important that we not drown out our own original ideas for the sake of cashing in easy to produce content for money.", ">\n\nHow do you define \"AI-generated media\"? How much of the image does it need to generate for it to be considered AI-generated? Is touching up photos okay? Fixing missing portions? Recreating objects? \nWhere does the \"media\" start and end? Can we use it for scientific purposes, where the media could be data or image on a journal?\nThere's no line that can be drawn, so a line shouldn't be drawn. You cannot make it illegal.", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product? \n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand? \n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nPeople will still pay for human made designs if they want to. They do it right now, people can buy bowls from a company that mass produces them, or pay for the hand made 'rustic' bowls. \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify? \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nIt can produce whatever people want it to.", ">\n\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product?\n\nIt's not about forcing anything? It's about making it available at least. You do not have the freedom to choose it, if it's not available. \n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand?\n\nAt a certain point, the tool is no longer a tool, but the creator. When I use photo shop, I understand the result of what I'm doing. \n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify?\n\nYeah, I mean like how Nazism and nudity make it to top of Google images. The search engine confuses quality results with inflammatory. I guess you can argue popular news outlets do this too.", ">\n\nThe most compelling argument in principle is of AI content actually caused significant job loss. But I think this is a tough sell, because content generation isn't actually a major source of jobs. I think it was a tweet and can't remember exactly, but I recall someone recently pointing out that if literally all illustrator jobs were eliminated, that wouldn't actually be that massive of an impact to the overall labor pool. If we want to worry about lost jobs, we should be a lot more concerned about service industry stuff.\nBut I also think a lot of your points are kind of at cross purposes. You make a lot of arguments as to how genuine human made stuff is actually better in some ways, but if that's true and that's what people want, you don't need to make anything illegal. Make websites that don't allow AI generated content. If it's good, there's a business opportunity there for \"artisan\" content that should be able to compete to some degree with AI stuff. But if it's not true that the human made stuff has added value, then it becomes less clear that there's an actual problem here.\n\nIt is important for society to constantly be able to evolve and improve itself, however for a culture to move forward it has to be exposed by counter-thinking citizens. If the media of a culture is self-perpetuating it's own culture in mass, it will not be able to expose itself of it's own flaws and improve.\n\nI guess I'm not sure why you think AI can't do this in principle. I think it's true that current AI models aren't really trying to do this, but I don't see any reason why you think this is fundamentally out of reach from AI. I'm not sure if this part of your view is pessimism around what AI can do, or it's just overly optimistic about what humans can do. Point is, when humans do \"counter-thinking\", I think you might be attributing something magical to this that isn't really there, where it seems more likely that whatever humans are doing when they create \"counter-popular\" stuff could be taught to an AI, probably more easily than you think.", ">\n\nBased on your points, what's is your consideration of AI being the typewriter and not replacing the typist? Ai will be used by creatives to make unique/speed up production of existing art. They will not be replaced.", ">\n\nI gather you're talking about content on social media platforms?\nIf Instagram and youtube, etc, wanted to ban AI generated content, wouldn't they just do that? Why do you need to get the government involved?", ">\n\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content in the same amount of time that an human could do their own research, identify a trend, and create the media.\n\nthis is just free market competition. We didn't ban the cotton gin because it was better at processing raw cotton then the laborers previously doing it. any technology that increases productivity hurts people who previously did that work. \n\nThis makes it impossible for any upcoming producer of any sort of media to escape the trenches of tier 0 content.\n\nAny person in a trade will need to learn the tools of the trade. AI will be a tool of the trade. Same as photoshop or other software.\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts. Compare this to the people who work editing videos or writing papers hours on end. The average cost of making that content will be dragged down until it is eventually un-reasonable to create to make money.\n\nAgain this happens all the time. The cost of producing food has fallen dramatically in the last 100 years or so. Lots of people lost their family farms because they couldn't remain profitable and industrialization radically improved output. Now we have low cost food. Lower costs is a good thing.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\nI think people desire authentic creations that reflect the creator and similarities with themselves, but AI will learn to mimic human seeming media and fail.. a lot. It also tends to confuse facts and available opinions that will piss off any educated consumer.\n\nI don't buy things that frustrate me. If is frustrating and people want authentic creators then let AI created media find and fill whatever niche is it good at. You don't need to ban it, let people find a use for it. It can generate logos a business or create business cards or some other thing there authentic isn't important to the consumer.\n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\nI don't think it'll ever be able to distinguish the two, unless we spell out an impossible moral code that even we don't understand.\n\nI don't understand this point except that maybe you are saying it will produce bad content. and again fine, there is very little reason to ban things just on account of quality.\n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\nIt is important for society to constantly be able to evolve and improve itself, however for a culture to move forward it has to be exposed by counter-thinking citizens. If the media of a culture is self-perpetuating it's own culture in mass, it will not be able to expose itself of it's own flaws and improve.\n\nfor the foreseeable future AI media is going to be used as a tool. All such tools today take input from a human user. the AI can write content for you but its based off the input you give it. \nEven in the absence of that, current counter popular media still needs to be popular in a niche or subculture. If you are thinking about a future super inteligence sifi AI, it can probably generate content of these subgroups the same way that a human could." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?", ">\n\nYou’ve asked that question twice now as if your not likely completely surrounded by art right now that either you or someone else likely payed for.\nLet’s assume your in your bedroom,\nCurtains (art)\nBedding (art)\nDo you have a phone case? Like has art on it. \nAny packaging of any kind anywhere in sight? (Art) \nOf course any art on the walls…\nWallpaper? (Art) \nThen there’s the less obvious ones you might not even notice. \nDresser? designed by an carpenter (art)\nThe phone your holding? Designed meticulously (art)\nLiterally any other devise at all? All designed (art) \nIs your ceiling flat? Or does it have a texture? Guess what that’s art. \nThe ui your looking at right now here on Reddit? All designed (art) \nAll our Reddit avatars. (Art)\nAny other website at all (art) \nThe point is you could literally do whatever you wanted with it including selling it. Claiming you created it, or whatever else. Basically if you benefit in some way from AI generated art when you are not an artist and didn’t create that thing then it’s wrong. There are thousands of talented artists out there who would love to design something personally for you.", ">\n\nWhy not? China did.", ">\n\nNot in China lol. Why is this like a free speech issue for you?", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nAs many other things that are legal, so what is the point in banning AI generated media? You do realize that we already have shit produced based on text-to-speech and shutterstock, so what exactly AI changes? Using AI will result in, at best, marginal increase in producing shitty media of \"clickbait-and-forget\" flavor.\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nHow? Value is not derived from how much hours you put into a media piece but rather how good you are at creating that media piece. AI generation will be just another tool that creators can use to work less while producing quality content.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nThis point does not make sense, AI generation is not automated - AI does not think, is not creative, it needs human input, a direction in which it has to go and human needs to decide when/which output is acceptable. \nI have a growing suspicion that you don't really understand how AI works.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nAI does not misunderstand anything, it understands topic exactly as it is taught. F.ex. current AI image generators are limited to not produce certain content and they don't.\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nWhy? It produces what you tell it to produce. Why do you believe that if I tell it specifically to produce \"counter-popular media\" it will not produce it? AI does what is ordered, it does not think.\nSeriously, do you have any inclination on how AI works? Cause most of your point are applicable to some hypothetical s-f AI that we are nowhere close to be created. And if that AI becomes reality then AI media will be least of our concerns.", ">\n\n1) Shit posting is bad but auto shit posting is devastating to the platform. People will stop using it if they have to dig through so much.\n2) I don't see how you can say AI is a tool. Like me typing a prompt to chatGPT is creating. Seems more like handing your homework over to an auto correct bot.\n3) Maybe that's true? I've seen the AI generated fake news clips, face overlays, bot comments, b role footage, chatGPT generated scripts, and t-shirt sale sites. It doesn't seem necessary for a person to have any sort of influence of the content. All of the popular uses of it now all include human input, but there are several avenues that are abusing the hell out of ai auto generated content.\n4) I've receded this point as I understand you can program a AI to get counter opinions to any topic. Do I reward the guy that changed my opinion on that?\n5) I understand that this point is a moral argument, but it it important that we not drown out our own original ideas for the sake of cashing in easy to produce content for money.", ">\n\nHow do you define \"AI-generated media\"? How much of the image does it need to generate for it to be considered AI-generated? Is touching up photos okay? Fixing missing portions? Recreating objects? \nWhere does the \"media\" start and end? Can we use it for scientific purposes, where the media could be data or image on a journal?\nThere's no line that can be drawn, so a line shouldn't be drawn. You cannot make it illegal.", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product? \n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand? \n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nPeople will still pay for human made designs if they want to. They do it right now, people can buy bowls from a company that mass produces them, or pay for the hand made 'rustic' bowls. \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify? \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nIt can produce whatever people want it to.", ">\n\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product?\n\nIt's not about forcing anything? It's about making it available at least. You do not have the freedom to choose it, if it's not available. \n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand?\n\nAt a certain point, the tool is no longer a tool, but the creator. When I use photo shop, I understand the result of what I'm doing. \n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify?\n\nYeah, I mean like how Nazism and nudity make it to top of Google images. The search engine confuses quality results with inflammatory. I guess you can argue popular news outlets do this too.", ">\n\nThe most compelling argument in principle is of AI content actually caused significant job loss. But I think this is a tough sell, because content generation isn't actually a major source of jobs. I think it was a tweet and can't remember exactly, but I recall someone recently pointing out that if literally all illustrator jobs were eliminated, that wouldn't actually be that massive of an impact to the overall labor pool. If we want to worry about lost jobs, we should be a lot more concerned about service industry stuff.\nBut I also think a lot of your points are kind of at cross purposes. You make a lot of arguments as to how genuine human made stuff is actually better in some ways, but if that's true and that's what people want, you don't need to make anything illegal. Make websites that don't allow AI generated content. If it's good, there's a business opportunity there for \"artisan\" content that should be able to compete to some degree with AI stuff. But if it's not true that the human made stuff has added value, then it becomes less clear that there's an actual problem here.\n\nIt is important for society to constantly be able to evolve and improve itself, however for a culture to move forward it has to be exposed by counter-thinking citizens. If the media of a culture is self-perpetuating it's own culture in mass, it will not be able to expose itself of it's own flaws and improve.\n\nI guess I'm not sure why you think AI can't do this in principle. I think it's true that current AI models aren't really trying to do this, but I don't see any reason why you think this is fundamentally out of reach from AI. I'm not sure if this part of your view is pessimism around what AI can do, or it's just overly optimistic about what humans can do. Point is, when humans do \"counter-thinking\", I think you might be attributing something magical to this that isn't really there, where it seems more likely that whatever humans are doing when they create \"counter-popular\" stuff could be taught to an AI, probably more easily than you think.", ">\n\nBased on your points, what's is your consideration of AI being the typewriter and not replacing the typist? Ai will be used by creatives to make unique/speed up production of existing art. They will not be replaced.", ">\n\nI gather you're talking about content on social media platforms?\nIf Instagram and youtube, etc, wanted to ban AI generated content, wouldn't they just do that? Why do you need to get the government involved?", ">\n\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content in the same amount of time that an human could do their own research, identify a trend, and create the media.\n\nthis is just free market competition. We didn't ban the cotton gin because it was better at processing raw cotton then the laborers previously doing it. any technology that increases productivity hurts people who previously did that work. \n\nThis makes it impossible for any upcoming producer of any sort of media to escape the trenches of tier 0 content.\n\nAny person in a trade will need to learn the tools of the trade. AI will be a tool of the trade. Same as photoshop or other software.\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts. Compare this to the people who work editing videos or writing papers hours on end. The average cost of making that content will be dragged down until it is eventually un-reasonable to create to make money.\n\nAgain this happens all the time. The cost of producing food has fallen dramatically in the last 100 years or so. Lots of people lost their family farms because they couldn't remain profitable and industrialization radically improved output. Now we have low cost food. Lower costs is a good thing.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\nI think people desire authentic creations that reflect the creator and similarities with themselves, but AI will learn to mimic human seeming media and fail.. a lot. It also tends to confuse facts and available opinions that will piss off any educated consumer.\n\nI don't buy things that frustrate me. If is frustrating and people want authentic creators then let AI created media find and fill whatever niche is it good at. You don't need to ban it, let people find a use for it. It can generate logos a business or create business cards or some other thing there authentic isn't important to the consumer.\n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\nI don't think it'll ever be able to distinguish the two, unless we spell out an impossible moral code that even we don't understand.\n\nI don't understand this point except that maybe you are saying it will produce bad content. and again fine, there is very little reason to ban things just on account of quality.\n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\nIt is important for society to constantly be able to evolve and improve itself, however for a culture to move forward it has to be exposed by counter-thinking citizens. If the media of a culture is self-perpetuating it's own culture in mass, it will not be able to expose itself of it's own flaws and improve.\n\nfor the foreseeable future AI media is going to be used as a tool. All such tools today take input from a human user. the AI can write content for you but its based off the input you give it. \nEven in the absence of that, current counter popular media still needs to be popular in a niche or subculture. If you are thinking about a future super inteligence sifi AI, it can probably generate content of these subgroups the same way that a human could.", ">\n\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media\n\nWhy is that a reason for it to be illegal?\nMass production massively increased the speed physical goods could be produced, so that shoes that might have taken a skilled crafter several hours to make can be churned out by the hundreds in minutes, creating an overall benefit to society.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers\n\nAgain, why is that a reason for it to be illegal?\n\nI think people desire authentic creations\n\nWhat most people desire from art is something pretty to look at.\nI guarantee you that 9/10 people you meet on the street couldn't name 5 artists working in the last decade.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content\n\nWhat do you mean by this?\nAI art is nothing but a tool, one that can be used to produce nearly any kind of image in any style, how is it \"inflammatory\"?\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media\n\nThe opposite is true, AI art tools will allow a far larger portion of the population to produce art that can be used to tell their story despite their lack of traditional artistic skills.\nNone of your points have in any way provided a rational argument for illegalizing AI art." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?", ">\n\nYou’ve asked that question twice now as if your not likely completely surrounded by art right now that either you or someone else likely payed for.\nLet’s assume your in your bedroom,\nCurtains (art)\nBedding (art)\nDo you have a phone case? Like has art on it. \nAny packaging of any kind anywhere in sight? (Art) \nOf course any art on the walls…\nWallpaper? (Art) \nThen there’s the less obvious ones you might not even notice. \nDresser? designed by an carpenter (art)\nThe phone your holding? Designed meticulously (art)\nLiterally any other devise at all? All designed (art) \nIs your ceiling flat? Or does it have a texture? Guess what that’s art. \nThe ui your looking at right now here on Reddit? All designed (art) \nAll our Reddit avatars. (Art)\nAny other website at all (art) \nThe point is you could literally do whatever you wanted with it including selling it. Claiming you created it, or whatever else. Basically if you benefit in some way from AI generated art when you are not an artist and didn’t create that thing then it’s wrong. There are thousands of talented artists out there who would love to design something personally for you.", ">\n\nWhy not? China did.", ">\n\nNot in China lol. Why is this like a free speech issue for you?", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nAs many other things that are legal, so what is the point in banning AI generated media? You do realize that we already have shit produced based on text-to-speech and shutterstock, so what exactly AI changes? Using AI will result in, at best, marginal increase in producing shitty media of \"clickbait-and-forget\" flavor.\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nHow? Value is not derived from how much hours you put into a media piece but rather how good you are at creating that media piece. AI generation will be just another tool that creators can use to work less while producing quality content.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nThis point does not make sense, AI generation is not automated - AI does not think, is not creative, it needs human input, a direction in which it has to go and human needs to decide when/which output is acceptable. \nI have a growing suspicion that you don't really understand how AI works.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nAI does not misunderstand anything, it understands topic exactly as it is taught. F.ex. current AI image generators are limited to not produce certain content and they don't.\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nWhy? It produces what you tell it to produce. Why do you believe that if I tell it specifically to produce \"counter-popular media\" it will not produce it? AI does what is ordered, it does not think.\nSeriously, do you have any inclination on how AI works? Cause most of your point are applicable to some hypothetical s-f AI that we are nowhere close to be created. And if that AI becomes reality then AI media will be least of our concerns.", ">\n\n1) Shit posting is bad but auto shit posting is devastating to the platform. People will stop using it if they have to dig through so much.\n2) I don't see how you can say AI is a tool. Like me typing a prompt to chatGPT is creating. Seems more like handing your homework over to an auto correct bot.\n3) Maybe that's true? I've seen the AI generated fake news clips, face overlays, bot comments, b role footage, chatGPT generated scripts, and t-shirt sale sites. It doesn't seem necessary for a person to have any sort of influence of the content. All of the popular uses of it now all include human input, but there are several avenues that are abusing the hell out of ai auto generated content.\n4) I've receded this point as I understand you can program a AI to get counter opinions to any topic. Do I reward the guy that changed my opinion on that?\n5) I understand that this point is a moral argument, but it it important that we not drown out our own original ideas for the sake of cashing in easy to produce content for money.", ">\n\nHow do you define \"AI-generated media\"? How much of the image does it need to generate for it to be considered AI-generated? Is touching up photos okay? Fixing missing portions? Recreating objects? \nWhere does the \"media\" start and end? Can we use it for scientific purposes, where the media could be data or image on a journal?\nThere's no line that can be drawn, so a line shouldn't be drawn. You cannot make it illegal.", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product? \n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand? \n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nPeople will still pay for human made designs if they want to. They do it right now, people can buy bowls from a company that mass produces them, or pay for the hand made 'rustic' bowls. \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify? \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nIt can produce whatever people want it to.", ">\n\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product?\n\nIt's not about forcing anything? It's about making it available at least. You do not have the freedom to choose it, if it's not available. \n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand?\n\nAt a certain point, the tool is no longer a tool, but the creator. When I use photo shop, I understand the result of what I'm doing. \n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify?\n\nYeah, I mean like how Nazism and nudity make it to top of Google images. The search engine confuses quality results with inflammatory. I guess you can argue popular news outlets do this too.", ">\n\nThe most compelling argument in principle is of AI content actually caused significant job loss. But I think this is a tough sell, because content generation isn't actually a major source of jobs. I think it was a tweet and can't remember exactly, but I recall someone recently pointing out that if literally all illustrator jobs were eliminated, that wouldn't actually be that massive of an impact to the overall labor pool. If we want to worry about lost jobs, we should be a lot more concerned about service industry stuff.\nBut I also think a lot of your points are kind of at cross purposes. You make a lot of arguments as to how genuine human made stuff is actually better in some ways, but if that's true and that's what people want, you don't need to make anything illegal. Make websites that don't allow AI generated content. If it's good, there's a business opportunity there for \"artisan\" content that should be able to compete to some degree with AI stuff. But if it's not true that the human made stuff has added value, then it becomes less clear that there's an actual problem here.\n\nIt is important for society to constantly be able to evolve and improve itself, however for a culture to move forward it has to be exposed by counter-thinking citizens. If the media of a culture is self-perpetuating it's own culture in mass, it will not be able to expose itself of it's own flaws and improve.\n\nI guess I'm not sure why you think AI can't do this in principle. I think it's true that current AI models aren't really trying to do this, but I don't see any reason why you think this is fundamentally out of reach from AI. I'm not sure if this part of your view is pessimism around what AI can do, or it's just overly optimistic about what humans can do. Point is, when humans do \"counter-thinking\", I think you might be attributing something magical to this that isn't really there, where it seems more likely that whatever humans are doing when they create \"counter-popular\" stuff could be taught to an AI, probably more easily than you think.", ">\n\nBased on your points, what's is your consideration of AI being the typewriter and not replacing the typist? Ai will be used by creatives to make unique/speed up production of existing art. They will not be replaced.", ">\n\nI gather you're talking about content on social media platforms?\nIf Instagram and youtube, etc, wanted to ban AI generated content, wouldn't they just do that? Why do you need to get the government involved?", ">\n\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content in the same amount of time that an human could do their own research, identify a trend, and create the media.\n\nthis is just free market competition. We didn't ban the cotton gin because it was better at processing raw cotton then the laborers previously doing it. any technology that increases productivity hurts people who previously did that work. \n\nThis makes it impossible for any upcoming producer of any sort of media to escape the trenches of tier 0 content.\n\nAny person in a trade will need to learn the tools of the trade. AI will be a tool of the trade. Same as photoshop or other software.\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts. Compare this to the people who work editing videos or writing papers hours on end. The average cost of making that content will be dragged down until it is eventually un-reasonable to create to make money.\n\nAgain this happens all the time. The cost of producing food has fallen dramatically in the last 100 years or so. Lots of people lost their family farms because they couldn't remain profitable and industrialization radically improved output. Now we have low cost food. Lower costs is a good thing.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\nI think people desire authentic creations that reflect the creator and similarities with themselves, but AI will learn to mimic human seeming media and fail.. a lot. It also tends to confuse facts and available opinions that will piss off any educated consumer.\n\nI don't buy things that frustrate me. If is frustrating and people want authentic creators then let AI created media find and fill whatever niche is it good at. You don't need to ban it, let people find a use for it. It can generate logos a business or create business cards or some other thing there authentic isn't important to the consumer.\n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\nI don't think it'll ever be able to distinguish the two, unless we spell out an impossible moral code that even we don't understand.\n\nI don't understand this point except that maybe you are saying it will produce bad content. and again fine, there is very little reason to ban things just on account of quality.\n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\nIt is important for society to constantly be able to evolve and improve itself, however for a culture to move forward it has to be exposed by counter-thinking citizens. If the media of a culture is self-perpetuating it's own culture in mass, it will not be able to expose itself of it's own flaws and improve.\n\nfor the foreseeable future AI media is going to be used as a tool. All such tools today take input from a human user. the AI can write content for you but its based off the input you give it. \nEven in the absence of that, current counter popular media still needs to be popular in a niche or subculture. If you are thinking about a future super inteligence sifi AI, it can probably generate content of these subgroups the same way that a human could.", ">\n\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media\n\nWhy is that a reason for it to be illegal?\nMass production massively increased the speed physical goods could be produced, so that shoes that might have taken a skilled crafter several hours to make can be churned out by the hundreds in minutes, creating an overall benefit to society.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers\n\nAgain, why is that a reason for it to be illegal?\n\nI think people desire authentic creations\n\nWhat most people desire from art is something pretty to look at.\nI guarantee you that 9/10 people you meet on the street couldn't name 5 artists working in the last decade.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content\n\nWhat do you mean by this?\nAI art is nothing but a tool, one that can be used to produce nearly any kind of image in any style, how is it \"inflammatory\"?\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media\n\nThe opposite is true, AI art tools will allow a far larger portion of the population to produce art that can be used to tell their story despite their lack of traditional artistic skills.\nNone of your points have in any way provided a rational argument for illegalizing AI art.", ">\n\n1) I think it becomes an issue when volume is not a limit. Like it doesn't matter the price or quality, if I load your 7/11 floor to ceiling with my power bars, good luck buying anything but. \n2) See above.\n3) Minor point, so I'm not wasting either of our time for it. \n4) chatGPT, for example has been known to spout Nazi propaganda. The program pulls from content with high engagement and content that is often engaged with is generally inflammatory like racist, sexy, or otherwise outrageous headlines.\n5) I conceded this point. I get that you can program a bot to disagree with people." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?", ">\n\nYou’ve asked that question twice now as if your not likely completely surrounded by art right now that either you or someone else likely payed for.\nLet’s assume your in your bedroom,\nCurtains (art)\nBedding (art)\nDo you have a phone case? Like has art on it. \nAny packaging of any kind anywhere in sight? (Art) \nOf course any art on the walls…\nWallpaper? (Art) \nThen there’s the less obvious ones you might not even notice. \nDresser? designed by an carpenter (art)\nThe phone your holding? Designed meticulously (art)\nLiterally any other devise at all? All designed (art) \nIs your ceiling flat? Or does it have a texture? Guess what that’s art. \nThe ui your looking at right now here on Reddit? All designed (art) \nAll our Reddit avatars. (Art)\nAny other website at all (art) \nThe point is you could literally do whatever you wanted with it including selling it. Claiming you created it, or whatever else. Basically if you benefit in some way from AI generated art when you are not an artist and didn’t create that thing then it’s wrong. There are thousands of talented artists out there who would love to design something personally for you.", ">\n\nWhy not? China did.", ">\n\nNot in China lol. Why is this like a free speech issue for you?", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nAs many other things that are legal, so what is the point in banning AI generated media? You do realize that we already have shit produced based on text-to-speech and shutterstock, so what exactly AI changes? Using AI will result in, at best, marginal increase in producing shitty media of \"clickbait-and-forget\" flavor.\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nHow? Value is not derived from how much hours you put into a media piece but rather how good you are at creating that media piece. AI generation will be just another tool that creators can use to work less while producing quality content.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nThis point does not make sense, AI generation is not automated - AI does not think, is not creative, it needs human input, a direction in which it has to go and human needs to decide when/which output is acceptable. \nI have a growing suspicion that you don't really understand how AI works.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nAI does not misunderstand anything, it understands topic exactly as it is taught. F.ex. current AI image generators are limited to not produce certain content and they don't.\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nWhy? It produces what you tell it to produce. Why do you believe that if I tell it specifically to produce \"counter-popular media\" it will not produce it? AI does what is ordered, it does not think.\nSeriously, do you have any inclination on how AI works? Cause most of your point are applicable to some hypothetical s-f AI that we are nowhere close to be created. And if that AI becomes reality then AI media will be least of our concerns.", ">\n\n1) Shit posting is bad but auto shit posting is devastating to the platform. People will stop using it if they have to dig through so much.\n2) I don't see how you can say AI is a tool. Like me typing a prompt to chatGPT is creating. Seems more like handing your homework over to an auto correct bot.\n3) Maybe that's true? I've seen the AI generated fake news clips, face overlays, bot comments, b role footage, chatGPT generated scripts, and t-shirt sale sites. It doesn't seem necessary for a person to have any sort of influence of the content. All of the popular uses of it now all include human input, but there are several avenues that are abusing the hell out of ai auto generated content.\n4) I've receded this point as I understand you can program a AI to get counter opinions to any topic. Do I reward the guy that changed my opinion on that?\n5) I understand that this point is a moral argument, but it it important that we not drown out our own original ideas for the sake of cashing in easy to produce content for money.", ">\n\nHow do you define \"AI-generated media\"? How much of the image does it need to generate for it to be considered AI-generated? Is touching up photos okay? Fixing missing portions? Recreating objects? \nWhere does the \"media\" start and end? Can we use it for scientific purposes, where the media could be data or image on a journal?\nThere's no line that can be drawn, so a line shouldn't be drawn. You cannot make it illegal.", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product? \n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand? \n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nPeople will still pay for human made designs if they want to. They do it right now, people can buy bowls from a company that mass produces them, or pay for the hand made 'rustic' bowls. \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify? \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nIt can produce whatever people want it to.", ">\n\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product?\n\nIt's not about forcing anything? It's about making it available at least. You do not have the freedom to choose it, if it's not available. \n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand?\n\nAt a certain point, the tool is no longer a tool, but the creator. When I use photo shop, I understand the result of what I'm doing. \n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify?\n\nYeah, I mean like how Nazism and nudity make it to top of Google images. The search engine confuses quality results with inflammatory. I guess you can argue popular news outlets do this too.", ">\n\nThe most compelling argument in principle is of AI content actually caused significant job loss. But I think this is a tough sell, because content generation isn't actually a major source of jobs. I think it was a tweet and can't remember exactly, but I recall someone recently pointing out that if literally all illustrator jobs were eliminated, that wouldn't actually be that massive of an impact to the overall labor pool. If we want to worry about lost jobs, we should be a lot more concerned about service industry stuff.\nBut I also think a lot of your points are kind of at cross purposes. You make a lot of arguments as to how genuine human made stuff is actually better in some ways, but if that's true and that's what people want, you don't need to make anything illegal. Make websites that don't allow AI generated content. If it's good, there's a business opportunity there for \"artisan\" content that should be able to compete to some degree with AI stuff. But if it's not true that the human made stuff has added value, then it becomes less clear that there's an actual problem here.\n\nIt is important for society to constantly be able to evolve and improve itself, however for a culture to move forward it has to be exposed by counter-thinking citizens. If the media of a culture is self-perpetuating it's own culture in mass, it will not be able to expose itself of it's own flaws and improve.\n\nI guess I'm not sure why you think AI can't do this in principle. I think it's true that current AI models aren't really trying to do this, but I don't see any reason why you think this is fundamentally out of reach from AI. I'm not sure if this part of your view is pessimism around what AI can do, or it's just overly optimistic about what humans can do. Point is, when humans do \"counter-thinking\", I think you might be attributing something magical to this that isn't really there, where it seems more likely that whatever humans are doing when they create \"counter-popular\" stuff could be taught to an AI, probably more easily than you think.", ">\n\nBased on your points, what's is your consideration of AI being the typewriter and not replacing the typist? Ai will be used by creatives to make unique/speed up production of existing art. They will not be replaced.", ">\n\nI gather you're talking about content on social media platforms?\nIf Instagram and youtube, etc, wanted to ban AI generated content, wouldn't they just do that? Why do you need to get the government involved?", ">\n\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content in the same amount of time that an human could do their own research, identify a trend, and create the media.\n\nthis is just free market competition. We didn't ban the cotton gin because it was better at processing raw cotton then the laborers previously doing it. any technology that increases productivity hurts people who previously did that work. \n\nThis makes it impossible for any upcoming producer of any sort of media to escape the trenches of tier 0 content.\n\nAny person in a trade will need to learn the tools of the trade. AI will be a tool of the trade. Same as photoshop or other software.\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts. Compare this to the people who work editing videos or writing papers hours on end. The average cost of making that content will be dragged down until it is eventually un-reasonable to create to make money.\n\nAgain this happens all the time. The cost of producing food has fallen dramatically in the last 100 years or so. Lots of people lost their family farms because they couldn't remain profitable and industrialization radically improved output. Now we have low cost food. Lower costs is a good thing.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\nI think people desire authentic creations that reflect the creator and similarities with themselves, but AI will learn to mimic human seeming media and fail.. a lot. It also tends to confuse facts and available opinions that will piss off any educated consumer.\n\nI don't buy things that frustrate me. If is frustrating and people want authentic creators then let AI created media find and fill whatever niche is it good at. You don't need to ban it, let people find a use for it. It can generate logos a business or create business cards or some other thing there authentic isn't important to the consumer.\n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\nI don't think it'll ever be able to distinguish the two, unless we spell out an impossible moral code that even we don't understand.\n\nI don't understand this point except that maybe you are saying it will produce bad content. and again fine, there is very little reason to ban things just on account of quality.\n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\nIt is important for society to constantly be able to evolve and improve itself, however for a culture to move forward it has to be exposed by counter-thinking citizens. If the media of a culture is self-perpetuating it's own culture in mass, it will not be able to expose itself of it's own flaws and improve.\n\nfor the foreseeable future AI media is going to be used as a tool. All such tools today take input from a human user. the AI can write content for you but its based off the input you give it. \nEven in the absence of that, current counter popular media still needs to be popular in a niche or subculture. If you are thinking about a future super inteligence sifi AI, it can probably generate content of these subgroups the same way that a human could.", ">\n\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media\n\nWhy is that a reason for it to be illegal?\nMass production massively increased the speed physical goods could be produced, so that shoes that might have taken a skilled crafter several hours to make can be churned out by the hundreds in minutes, creating an overall benefit to society.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers\n\nAgain, why is that a reason for it to be illegal?\n\nI think people desire authentic creations\n\nWhat most people desire from art is something pretty to look at.\nI guarantee you that 9/10 people you meet on the street couldn't name 5 artists working in the last decade.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content\n\nWhat do you mean by this?\nAI art is nothing but a tool, one that can be used to produce nearly any kind of image in any style, how is it \"inflammatory\"?\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media\n\nThe opposite is true, AI art tools will allow a far larger portion of the population to produce art that can be used to tell their story despite their lack of traditional artistic skills.\nNone of your points have in any way provided a rational argument for illegalizing AI art.", ">\n\n1) I think it becomes an issue when volume is not a limit. Like it doesn't matter the price or quality, if I load your 7/11 floor to ceiling with my power bars, good luck buying anything but. \n2) See above.\n3) Minor point, so I'm not wasting either of our time for it. \n4) chatGPT, for example has been known to spout Nazi propaganda. The program pulls from content with high engagement and content that is often engaged with is generally inflammatory like racist, sexy, or otherwise outrageous headlines.\n5) I conceded this point. I get that you can program a bot to disagree with people.", ">\n\nYes, there's a lot of garbage content. But won't AI just make it more plentiful and cheaper to make by sleezy companies trying to pull in attention for ad revenue and whatnot? Like Buzzfeed could dump all their writers tomorrow and start pumping out as much content as they could make for maximum profit." ]

[ "Shoe factories are limited by materials and supply and demand. AI is only limited by bandwidth. A fairer comparison would be adding software to the mix for artists and writers and factories to cobblers. Yes software has enabled creators to create at a greater speed, they are still the creators. What I'm talking about is enabling separate entities to create on their own with a few guide lines. Factories are still guided by material experts and artists. This is no where near the same in comparison. I would argue that you have done actual artists an injustice in using AI generated media. Maybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content. Like what China has made law.", ">\n\n\nMaybe my remark about making it illegal was too much, but it should definitely be labeled and seperated from human made content\n\nThat's a delta to the guy you're responding to. Your position has changed.", ">\n\nI'm still asking for the outlawing of the current state of media.", ">\n\n\"making it illegal is too much\" or \"asking for the outlawing of the current state\"\nWhich is it? You can't have both", ">\n\nI still think it should be outlawed in it's current state.", ">\n\n\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content\n\nI can imagine game developers loving that. \"I need 8 versions of a soda can to litter throughout the level\".\n\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts.\n\nAren't there like 5 million YouTube videos uploaded every day?\n​\nI think what a lot of people are missing is that the AI isn't just sitting there generating millions of pieces of random art. Someone basically has to ask it to do something. I have seen the prompts used to create some art and writing a good one looks like a skill in and of itself.", ">\n\nI'm going to go in a slightly different direction than the other commenters. What would it look like to make it \"illegal\"? Do you really think making AI art is worth throwing somebody in jail over? If not criminal, then how high of a fine is appropriate? \nThere are also evidentiary issues. How would you define AI generation of an image? When you play a video game, a computer is using various assets to generate an image on the screen. How do you define AI-generated art in a way that doesn't eliminate that? What about tools in photoshop that use procedural algorithms to do things like smooth or diffuse an image? \nIf there are monetary damages under your proposed law, who would the money go to? What organization would need to prosecute the case? What court would it be heard in?\nPeople throw around the notion that this or that should be \"made illegal\" all the time. Actually making something illegal is a very difficult process. In this case, it seems nearly impossible.", ">\n\nCan you name anything else that is illegal for all of these reasons? We use AI for a lot of production.\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular? If it is inferior, then people won't buy or view the art. It will fade away and we wasted all that effort on making something illegal for differences of artistic opinion.\nThese seem like reasons not to consume AI media, not to take legal action.", ">\n\n\nWhy isn't it sufficient for people to decide with their media consumption what is popular?\n\nThat's the problem. People want shit. So that's what we'll be fed.", ">\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\nPeople aren't going to stop consuming shit because you make certain shit illegal, they'll just look for other shit. If you want to get people to appreciate certain art, making all the art they do appreciate illegal for that purpose is only going to make them want more shit and to want the shit you demand they consume less. All art is shit to someone.", ">\n\n\nAnd yet we don't make McDonald's or reality TV illegal. Nor is that necessarily possible.\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nYou make all kinds of arguments why we shouldn't consume AI media, but no arguments as to why we can or should make it illegal.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.", ">\n\n\nIt is different though. TLC is limited to it's timeslots and channel. AI generated media is not limited to platform or volume of content.\n\nThey are both equally limited in that consumption of either is entirely option. I manage to live my life without watching TLC reality shows. I could also choose not to consume AI art.\n\nI see your point. I'm arguing that it should be illegal for the same reasons we outlaw certain drugs. It's too good.\n\nWe outlaw drugs because they cause demonstrable harm to society up to and including mass death. What evidence of demonstrable harm can you provide for AI art? Are people dying from consuming it? Has it been determined to be addictive in clinical studies?\nIf your justification for making it illegal is the same reason heroine is illegal, what evidence can you offer of that comparison?", ">\n\nSo I program for a living and as a hobby. Professionally I do nothing with AI but in my free time I've dabbled a bit into it. Say I make an AI in my free time that generates media based on a training set of royalty free art. What punishment should I face according to you? \nNow as for your arguments:\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nSo you want to make it illegal because it's a genuine competitor? Isn't that the exact opposite of free market and capitalism?\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nBasically the same as the previous one, you want to make it illegal because it's a competitor.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nAre you saying that people working with artists last year were not frustrated or that AI is more frustrating? Or are you just saying that AI is frustrating without comparing it to existing artists? \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nNo, it cannot possible misunderstand anything because it can't understand anything. There's no general artificial intelligence. These AIs simply mimic what they've been given without understanding anything. \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nYou want to make it illegal because it can't do something?", ">\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here. Just trying to start some talk on a concerning topic. \n1) That's not competitive, it's drowning out by volume. 50 garbage articles will make the crafted accurate article invisible.\n2) False\n3) I'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n4) But what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right? So it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both.\n5) It's a moral argument for why it should not be the main perpetuator of our media.", ">\n\n\nI'm not drafting any laws here\n\nYou're suggesting that something be made illegal, so suggest an appropriate punishment. The potential punishment is a key part of a new law so it should be a key part of your suggestion.\n\nit's drowning out by volume\n\nLike that's something new, people post garbage tiktoks every day, should that be illegal too just because they're garbage?\n\nI'm saying that consumers will have an increasingly difficult time finding quality content.\n\nAgain, free market and that's nothing new.\n\nBut what it is given is all existing media and the impressions that media has made, right?\n\nAs far as I'm aware, just a subset of some existing media. It's impossible to train an AI on all existing media. Impressions could have been added but I doubt it. I think the quality selection was done in the creation of the training set and not via meta data but I could be wrong in that.\n\nSo it'll be able to see engagement time of users on inflammatory content and quality content and see that they are both successful and mimic both\n\nWhat you said is possible yes. The Youtube algorithm is doing exactly this at this very moment in time. Should youtube be brought before a judge for their algorithm? (Which is an AI btw, it just isn't creating images)\n\nit should not be the main perpetuator of our media\n\nIt isn't and it never will be", ">\n\nIf the artists can't satisfy customers as well as the AI, why should the customers be forced to buy or use the products of the artists and not the AI? Why are we sacrificing the customers' interests to the inability of the artists to keep up with the times?", ">\n\nYour whole argument is based on the assumption that you know what's best for our society, which is quite simply impossible. You can possess your own beliefs and opinions of what is beneficial and what is not, but ultimately you do not possess the necessary knowledge or infallible judgement to decide whether something of this nature should be outlawed. For that matter, no one does.\n(Please refrain from the obligatory \"but murder is illegal\" retort. It's exhausting.)", ">\n\nBut murder is illegal.\nYou have admitted a critical flaw in your entire point. Laws exist; they do not need to be perfect. Laws are always a work in progress.", ">\n\nIt's not a flaw. Its just a point I have to explain far to often.\nHere, I'll lay it out:\n\n\nNo one has the right to impose their will on another person.\n\n\nwhen you murder someone, you are necessarily doing so against their wishes.\n\n\nYou have no right to do that.\n\n\nit's illegal.\n\n\nSo no... It's not a \"gotcha\" by any means. I don't know why people always conflate \"allowing people to live their lives,\" with \"allowing murder and other atrocities,\" because obviously murder quite literally goes against the idea of letting people live their lives, by quite literally ending them.", ">\n\n\n\nSo?\n\n\nThat’s actively good for me, the consumer. \n\n\nNo it means me, the consumer, gets access to art much more cheaply than otherwise.\n\n\nThat’s fundamentally subjective.\n\n\nSo? People can do that.", ">\n\nSo you would actively support someone who generates AI art but purchasing it from them? \nWhen you could support someone who actually used their talent and created something. That’s kids odd imo", ">\n\nI mean I could just generate the art using Ai myself.", ">\n\nAnd do what with it then?", ">\n\nLook at it mostly. What else does one do with art?", ">\n\nNo, what I mean is what would you physically do with the image? Share it? Print it out and hang it on your wall?…\nOr are you talking about just generating random stuff then moving on and just generating more etc, \nIn other words are you saying you’d just play with the ai or would you use the image in some way? That’s what I’m asking", ">\n\nSet as the wallpaper on my phone or use it to evade taxes. What else do you do with art?", ">\n\nYou’ve asked that question twice now as if your not likely completely surrounded by art right now that either you or someone else likely payed for.\nLet’s assume your in your bedroom,\nCurtains (art)\nBedding (art)\nDo you have a phone case? Like has art on it. \nAny packaging of any kind anywhere in sight? (Art) \nOf course any art on the walls…\nWallpaper? (Art) \nThen there’s the less obvious ones you might not even notice. \nDresser? designed by an carpenter (art)\nThe phone your holding? Designed meticulously (art)\nLiterally any other devise at all? All designed (art) \nIs your ceiling flat? Or does it have a texture? Guess what that’s art. \nThe ui your looking at right now here on Reddit? All designed (art) \nAll our Reddit avatars. (Art)\nAny other website at all (art) \nThe point is you could literally do whatever you wanted with it including selling it. Claiming you created it, or whatever else. Basically if you benefit in some way from AI generated art when you are not an artist and didn’t create that thing then it’s wrong. There are thousands of talented artists out there who would love to design something personally for you.", ">\n\nWhy not? China did.", ">\n\nNot in China lol. Why is this like a free speech issue for you?", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nAs many other things that are legal, so what is the point in banning AI generated media? You do realize that we already have shit produced based on text-to-speech and shutterstock, so what exactly AI changes? Using AI will result in, at best, marginal increase in producing shitty media of \"clickbait-and-forget\" flavor.\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nHow? Value is not derived from how much hours you put into a media piece but rather how good you are at creating that media piece. AI generation will be just another tool that creators can use to work less while producing quality content.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nThis point does not make sense, AI generation is not automated - AI does not think, is not creative, it needs human input, a direction in which it has to go and human needs to decide when/which output is acceptable. \nI have a growing suspicion that you don't really understand how AI works.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nAI does not misunderstand anything, it understands topic exactly as it is taught. F.ex. current AI image generators are limited to not produce certain content and they don't.\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nWhy? It produces what you tell it to produce. Why do you believe that if I tell it specifically to produce \"counter-popular media\" it will not produce it? AI does what is ordered, it does not think.\nSeriously, do you have any inclination on how AI works? Cause most of your point are applicable to some hypothetical s-f AI that we are nowhere close to be created. And if that AI becomes reality then AI media will be least of our concerns.", ">\n\n1) Shit posting is bad but auto shit posting is devastating to the platform. People will stop using it if they have to dig through so much.\n2) I don't see how you can say AI is a tool. Like me typing a prompt to chatGPT is creating. Seems more like handing your homework over to an auto correct bot.\n3) Maybe that's true? I've seen the AI generated fake news clips, face overlays, bot comments, b role footage, chatGPT generated scripts, and t-shirt sale sites. It doesn't seem necessary for a person to have any sort of influence of the content. All of the popular uses of it now all include human input, but there are several avenues that are abusing the hell out of ai auto generated content.\n4) I've receded this point as I understand you can program a AI to get counter opinions to any topic. Do I reward the guy that changed my opinion on that?\n5) I understand that this point is a moral argument, but it it important that we not drown out our own original ideas for the sake of cashing in easy to produce content for money.", ">\n\nHow do you define \"AI-generated media\"? How much of the image does it need to generate for it to be considered AI-generated? Is touching up photos okay? Fixing missing portions? Recreating objects? \nWhere does the \"media\" start and end? Can we use it for scientific purposes, where the media could be data or image on a journal?\nThere's no line that can be drawn, so a line shouldn't be drawn. You cannot make it illegal.", ">\n\n\nIt bloats an already competitive media space.\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product? \n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand? \n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\n\nPeople will still pay for human made designs if they want to. They do it right now, people can buy bowls from a company that mass produces them, or pay for the hand made 'rustic' bowls. \n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify? \n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\n\nIt can produce whatever people want it to.", ">\n\n\nWhy do you want to be illegal? More so - why should people be forced to consider my product?\n\nIt's not about forcing anything? It's about making it available at least. You do not have the freedom to choose it, if it's not available. \n\nWould you propose that using computers to edit photographs should have been made illegal, because it cuts down on the amount of time it takes to do it all by hand?\n\nAt a certain point, the tool is no longer a tool, but the creator. When I use photo shop, I understand the result of what I'm doing. \n\nI don't quite understand what you mean by inflammatory content - can you clarify?\n\nYeah, I mean like how Nazism and nudity make it to top of Google images. The search engine confuses quality results with inflammatory. I guess you can argue popular news outlets do this too.", ">\n\nThe most compelling argument in principle is of AI content actually caused significant job loss. But I think this is a tough sell, because content generation isn't actually a major source of jobs. I think it was a tweet and can't remember exactly, but I recall someone recently pointing out that if literally all illustrator jobs were eliminated, that wouldn't actually be that massive of an impact to the overall labor pool. If we want to worry about lost jobs, we should be a lot more concerned about service industry stuff.\nBut I also think a lot of your points are kind of at cross purposes. You make a lot of arguments as to how genuine human made stuff is actually better in some ways, but if that's true and that's what people want, you don't need to make anything illegal. Make websites that don't allow AI generated content. If it's good, there's a business opportunity there for \"artisan\" content that should be able to compete to some degree with AI stuff. But if it's not true that the human made stuff has added value, then it becomes less clear that there's an actual problem here.\n\nIt is important for society to constantly be able to evolve and improve itself, however for a culture to move forward it has to be exposed by counter-thinking citizens. If the media of a culture is self-perpetuating it's own culture in mass, it will not be able to expose itself of it's own flaws and improve.\n\nI guess I'm not sure why you think AI can't do this in principle. I think it's true that current AI models aren't really trying to do this, but I don't see any reason why you think this is fundamentally out of reach from AI. I'm not sure if this part of your view is pessimism around what AI can do, or it's just overly optimistic about what humans can do. Point is, when humans do \"counter-thinking\", I think you might be attributing something magical to this that isn't really there, where it seems more likely that whatever humans are doing when they create \"counter-popular\" stuff could be taught to an AI, probably more easily than you think.", ">\n\nBased on your points, what's is your consideration of AI being the typewriter and not replacing the typist? Ai will be used by creatives to make unique/speed up production of existing art. They will not be replaced.", ">\n\nI gather you're talking about content on social media platforms?\nIf Instagram and youtube, etc, wanted to ban AI generated content, wouldn't they just do that? Why do you need to get the government involved?", ">\n\n\n1) It bloats an already competitive media space.\nAn AI can target a trending subject and create semi-relevant content for a company and submit hundreds of pieces of content in the same amount of time that an human could do their own research, identify a trend, and create the media.\n\nthis is just free market competition. We didn't ban the cotton gin because it was better at processing raw cotton then the laborers previously doing it. any technology that increases productivity hurts people who previously did that work. \n\nThis makes it impossible for any upcoming producer of any sort of media to escape the trenches of tier 0 content.\n\nAny person in a trade will need to learn the tools of the trade. AI will be a tool of the trade. Same as photoshop or other software.\n\n2) It decreases the value of surrounding media.\nAI will increase the volume of media that it is generating by crazy amounts. Compare this to the people who work editing videos or writing papers hours on end. The average cost of making that content will be dragged down until it is eventually un-reasonable to create to make money.\n\nAgain this happens all the time. The cost of producing food has fallen dramatically in the last 100 years or so. Lots of people lost their family farms because they couldn't remain profitable and industrialization radically improved output. Now we have low cost food. Lower costs is a good thing.\n\n3) It creates a frustrating experience for consumers.\nI think people desire authentic creations that reflect the creator and similarities with themselves, but AI will learn to mimic human seeming media and fail.. a lot. It also tends to confuse facts and available opinions that will piss off any educated consumer.\n\nI don't buy things that frustrate me. If is frustrating and people want authentic creators then let AI created media find and fill whatever niche is it good at. You don't need to ban it, let people find a use for it. It can generate logos a business or create business cards or some other thing there authentic isn't important to the consumer.\n\n4) It misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content.\nI don't think it'll ever be able to distinguish the two, unless we spell out an impossible moral code that even we don't understand.\n\nI don't understand this point except that maybe you are saying it will produce bad content. and again fine, there is very little reason to ban things just on account of quality.\n\n5) It cannot produce counter-popular media.\nIt is important for society to constantly be able to evolve and improve itself, however for a culture to move forward it has to be exposed by counter-thinking citizens. If the media of a culture is self-perpetuating it's own culture in mass, it will not be able to expose itself of it's own flaws and improve.\n\nfor the foreseeable future AI media is going to be used as a tool. All such tools today take input from a human user. the AI can write content for you but its based off the input you give it. \nEven in the absence of that, current counter popular media still needs to be popular in a niche or subculture. If you are thinking about a future super inteligence sifi AI, it can probably generate content of these subgroups the same way that a human could.", ">\n\n\nIt decreases the value of surrounding media\n\nWhy is that a reason for it to be illegal?\nMass production massively increased the speed physical goods could be produced, so that shoes that might have taken a skilled crafter several hours to make can be churned out by the hundreds in minutes, creating an overall benefit to society.\n\nIt creates a frustrating experience for consumers\n\nAgain, why is that a reason for it to be illegal?\n\nI think people desire authentic creations\n\nWhat most people desire from art is something pretty to look at.\nI guarantee you that 9/10 people you meet on the street couldn't name 5 artists working in the last decade.\n\nIt misunderstands the fundamental difference between popular quality work and inflammatory content\n\nWhat do you mean by this?\nAI art is nothing but a tool, one that can be used to produce nearly any kind of image in any style, how is it \"inflammatory\"?\n\nIt cannot produce counter-popular media\n\nThe opposite is true, AI art tools will allow a far larger portion of the population to produce art that can be used to tell their story despite their lack of traditional artistic skills.\nNone of your points have in any way provided a rational argument for illegalizing AI art.", ">\n\n1) I think it becomes an issue when volume is not a limit. Like it doesn't matter the price or quality, if I load your 7/11 floor to ceiling with my power bars, good luck buying anything but. \n2) See above.\n3) Minor point, so I'm not wasting either of our time for it. \n4) chatGPT, for example has been known to spout Nazi propaganda. The program pulls from content with high engagement and content that is often engaged with is generally inflammatory like racist, sexy, or otherwise outrageous headlines.\n5) I conceded this point. I get that you can program a bot to disagree with people.", ">\n\nYes, there's a lot of garbage content. But won't AI just make it more plentiful and cheaper to make by sleezy companies trying to pull in attention for ad revenue and whatnot? Like Buzzfeed could dump all their writers tomorrow and start pumping out as much content as they could make for maximum profit.", ">\n\nIt is already currently. The reason why low-level grunt writers are paid poorly is because they can be easily replaced by AI, or be outsourced to developing nations for 1/5th the wage.\nBoth humans or AI are just catering to gamifying the algorithm. AI is not the problem here. We need better content distribution algorithms on social media." ]

[]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)" ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us" ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise" ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote" ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent" ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you" ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either..." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think…." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs..." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?" ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time..." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs" ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted..." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?" ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor" ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things..." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP" ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country.", ">\n\nEvery second comment asked to vote for the Democrats. You can't get universal health-care throw voting. Never happens anywhere in the world.\nYou have to organise outside the parliaments with unions and neighbourhood-committees to get the power to stop everything. There is no other strategy. Such a naive discussion." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country.", ">\n\nEvery second comment asked to vote for the Democrats. You can't get universal health-care throw voting. Never happens anywhere in the world.\nYou have to organise outside the parliaments with unions and neighbourhood-committees to get the power to stop everything. There is no other strategy. Such a naive discussion.", ">\n\nYour take is way more naive than voting for politicians who support it. Most countries have gotten universal healthcare through the government and voting." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country.", ">\n\nEvery second comment asked to vote for the Democrats. You can't get universal health-care throw voting. Never happens anywhere in the world.\nYou have to organise outside the parliaments with unions and neighbourhood-committees to get the power to stop everything. There is no other strategy. Such a naive discussion.", ">\n\nYour take is way more naive than voting for politicians who support it. Most countries have gotten universal healthcare through the government and voting.", ">\n\nNot through just voting is what they mean." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country.", ">\n\nEvery second comment asked to vote for the Democrats. You can't get universal health-care throw voting. Never happens anywhere in the world.\nYou have to organise outside the parliaments with unions and neighbourhood-committees to get the power to stop everything. There is no other strategy. Such a naive discussion.", ">\n\nYour take is way more naive than voting for politicians who support it. Most countries have gotten universal healthcare through the government and voting.", ">\n\nNot through just voting is what they mean.", ">\n\nDid anyone here bother to read the article?" ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country.", ">\n\nEvery second comment asked to vote for the Democrats. You can't get universal health-care throw voting. Never happens anywhere in the world.\nYou have to organise outside the parliaments with unions and neighbourhood-committees to get the power to stop everything. There is no other strategy. Such a naive discussion.", ">\n\nYour take is way more naive than voting for politicians who support it. Most countries have gotten universal healthcare through the government and voting.", ">\n\nNot through just voting is what they mean.", ">\n\nDid anyone here bother to read the article?", ">\n\nYes people who have health insurance will likely lose it. Some bc of arbitrary income caps, some bc they moved, some bc states make it a giant pain in the ass to fill out all the paperwork. This will cause millions to no longer be able to afford healthcare, which is generally considered a bad thing. And the reason why them potentially qualifying for the ACA isn’t the answer is bc health insurance =/= health care. Every barrier, from language to change in residency to needing insurance approval, makes health outcomes worse." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country.", ">\n\nEvery second comment asked to vote for the Democrats. You can't get universal health-care throw voting. Never happens anywhere in the world.\nYou have to organise outside the parliaments with unions and neighbourhood-committees to get the power to stop everything. There is no other strategy. Such a naive discussion.", ">\n\nYour take is way more naive than voting for politicians who support it. Most countries have gotten universal healthcare through the government and voting.", ">\n\nNot through just voting is what they mean.", ">\n\nDid anyone here bother to read the article?", ">\n\nYes people who have health insurance will likely lose it. Some bc of arbitrary income caps, some bc they moved, some bc states make it a giant pain in the ass to fill out all the paperwork. This will cause millions to no longer be able to afford healthcare, which is generally considered a bad thing. And the reason why them potentially qualifying for the ACA isn’t the answer is bc health insurance =/= health care. Every barrier, from language to change in residency to needing insurance approval, makes health outcomes worse.", ">\n\nThis is bull, medical has stopped discontinuing people for most reasons (besides like death). When they declare covid no longer a public emergency a LOT of people will discontinue their medi-cal benefits that they’re NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO. Get the fuck out of here with this horrible title and comments." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country.", ">\n\nEvery second comment asked to vote for the Democrats. You can't get universal health-care throw voting. Never happens anywhere in the world.\nYou have to organise outside the parliaments with unions and neighbourhood-committees to get the power to stop everything. There is no other strategy. Such a naive discussion.", ">\n\nYour take is way more naive than voting for politicians who support it. Most countries have gotten universal healthcare through the government and voting.", ">\n\nNot through just voting is what they mean.", ">\n\nDid anyone here bother to read the article?", ">\n\nYes people who have health insurance will likely lose it. Some bc of arbitrary income caps, some bc they moved, some bc states make it a giant pain in the ass to fill out all the paperwork. This will cause millions to no longer be able to afford healthcare, which is generally considered a bad thing. And the reason why them potentially qualifying for the ACA isn’t the answer is bc health insurance =/= health care. Every barrier, from language to change in residency to needing insurance approval, makes health outcomes worse.", ">\n\nThis is bull, medical has stopped discontinuing people for most reasons (besides like death). When they declare covid no longer a public emergency a LOT of people will discontinue their medi-cal benefits that they’re NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO. Get the fuck out of here with this horrible title and comments.", ">\n\nThis reads like a really unfortunate turn of events until you realize that it's Republicans doing what they were elected to do. Just more federal welfare states' misappropriation of tax dollars." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country.", ">\n\nEvery second comment asked to vote for the Democrats. You can't get universal health-care throw voting. Never happens anywhere in the world.\nYou have to organise outside the parliaments with unions and neighbourhood-committees to get the power to stop everything. There is no other strategy. Such a naive discussion.", ">\n\nYour take is way more naive than voting for politicians who support it. Most countries have gotten universal healthcare through the government and voting.", ">\n\nNot through just voting is what they mean.", ">\n\nDid anyone here bother to read the article?", ">\n\nYes people who have health insurance will likely lose it. Some bc of arbitrary income caps, some bc they moved, some bc states make it a giant pain in the ass to fill out all the paperwork. This will cause millions to no longer be able to afford healthcare, which is generally considered a bad thing. And the reason why them potentially qualifying for the ACA isn’t the answer is bc health insurance =/= health care. Every barrier, from language to change in residency to needing insurance approval, makes health outcomes worse.", ">\n\nThis is bull, medical has stopped discontinuing people for most reasons (besides like death). When they declare covid no longer a public emergency a LOT of people will discontinue their medi-cal benefits that they’re NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO. Get the fuck out of here with this horrible title and comments.", ">\n\nThis reads like a really unfortunate turn of events until you realize that it's Republicans doing what they were elected to do. Just more federal welfare states' misappropriation of tax dollars.", ">\n\nI just got kicked off Medicaid and had to buy private insurance. And I’m in California!!" ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country.", ">\n\nEvery second comment asked to vote for the Democrats. You can't get universal health-care throw voting. Never happens anywhere in the world.\nYou have to organise outside the parliaments with unions and neighbourhood-committees to get the power to stop everything. There is no other strategy. Such a naive discussion.", ">\n\nYour take is way more naive than voting for politicians who support it. Most countries have gotten universal healthcare through the government and voting.", ">\n\nNot through just voting is what they mean.", ">\n\nDid anyone here bother to read the article?", ">\n\nYes people who have health insurance will likely lose it. Some bc of arbitrary income caps, some bc they moved, some bc states make it a giant pain in the ass to fill out all the paperwork. This will cause millions to no longer be able to afford healthcare, which is generally considered a bad thing. And the reason why them potentially qualifying for the ACA isn’t the answer is bc health insurance =/= health care. Every barrier, from language to change in residency to needing insurance approval, makes health outcomes worse.", ">\n\nThis is bull, medical has stopped discontinuing people for most reasons (besides like death). When they declare covid no longer a public emergency a LOT of people will discontinue their medi-cal benefits that they’re NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO. Get the fuck out of here with this horrible title and comments.", ">\n\nThis reads like a really unfortunate turn of events until you realize that it's Republicans doing what they were elected to do. Just more federal welfare states' misappropriation of tax dollars.", ">\n\nI just got kicked off Medicaid and had to buy private insurance. And I’m in California!!", ">\n\nDamn you, Obama, damn you!\n/s" ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country.", ">\n\nEvery second comment asked to vote for the Democrats. You can't get universal health-care throw voting. Never happens anywhere in the world.\nYou have to organise outside the parliaments with unions and neighbourhood-committees to get the power to stop everything. There is no other strategy. Such a naive discussion.", ">\n\nYour take is way more naive than voting for politicians who support it. Most countries have gotten universal healthcare through the government and voting.", ">\n\nNot through just voting is what they mean.", ">\n\nDid anyone here bother to read the article?", ">\n\nYes people who have health insurance will likely lose it. Some bc of arbitrary income caps, some bc they moved, some bc states make it a giant pain in the ass to fill out all the paperwork. This will cause millions to no longer be able to afford healthcare, which is generally considered a bad thing. And the reason why them potentially qualifying for the ACA isn’t the answer is bc health insurance =/= health care. Every barrier, from language to change in residency to needing insurance approval, makes health outcomes worse.", ">\n\nThis is bull, medical has stopped discontinuing people for most reasons (besides like death). When they declare covid no longer a public emergency a LOT of people will discontinue their medi-cal benefits that they’re NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO. Get the fuck out of here with this horrible title and comments.", ">\n\nThis reads like a really unfortunate turn of events until you realize that it's Republicans doing what they were elected to do. Just more federal welfare states' misappropriation of tax dollars.", ">\n\nI just got kicked off Medicaid and had to buy private insurance. And I’m in California!!", ">\n\nDamn you, Obama, damn you!\n/s", ">\n\nHorrifying if true 🥹" ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country.", ">\n\nEvery second comment asked to vote for the Democrats. You can't get universal health-care throw voting. Never happens anywhere in the world.\nYou have to organise outside the parliaments with unions and neighbourhood-committees to get the power to stop everything. There is no other strategy. Such a naive discussion.", ">\n\nYour take is way more naive than voting for politicians who support it. Most countries have gotten universal healthcare through the government and voting.", ">\n\nNot through just voting is what they mean.", ">\n\nDid anyone here bother to read the article?", ">\n\nYes people who have health insurance will likely lose it. Some bc of arbitrary income caps, some bc they moved, some bc states make it a giant pain in the ass to fill out all the paperwork. This will cause millions to no longer be able to afford healthcare, which is generally considered a bad thing. And the reason why them potentially qualifying for the ACA isn’t the answer is bc health insurance =/= health care. Every barrier, from language to change in residency to needing insurance approval, makes health outcomes worse.", ">\n\nThis is bull, medical has stopped discontinuing people for most reasons (besides like death). When they declare covid no longer a public emergency a LOT of people will discontinue their medi-cal benefits that they’re NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO. Get the fuck out of here with this horrible title and comments.", ">\n\nThis reads like a really unfortunate turn of events until you realize that it's Republicans doing what they were elected to do. Just more federal welfare states' misappropriation of tax dollars.", ">\n\nI just got kicked off Medicaid and had to buy private insurance. And I’m in California!!", ">\n\nDamn you, Obama, damn you!\n/s", ">\n\nHorrifying if true 🥹", ">\n\nThis article kinda sucks. It’s so vague and gives nearly 0 detail as to why or how people will lose it or what they could to to try to prevent losing it…" ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country.", ">\n\nEvery second comment asked to vote for the Democrats. You can't get universal health-care throw voting. Never happens anywhere in the world.\nYou have to organise outside the parliaments with unions and neighbourhood-committees to get the power to stop everything. There is no other strategy. Such a naive discussion.", ">\n\nYour take is way more naive than voting for politicians who support it. Most countries have gotten universal healthcare through the government and voting.", ">\n\nNot through just voting is what they mean.", ">\n\nDid anyone here bother to read the article?", ">\n\nYes people who have health insurance will likely lose it. Some bc of arbitrary income caps, some bc they moved, some bc states make it a giant pain in the ass to fill out all the paperwork. This will cause millions to no longer be able to afford healthcare, which is generally considered a bad thing. And the reason why them potentially qualifying for the ACA isn’t the answer is bc health insurance =/= health care. Every barrier, from language to change in residency to needing insurance approval, makes health outcomes worse.", ">\n\nThis is bull, medical has stopped discontinuing people for most reasons (besides like death). When they declare covid no longer a public emergency a LOT of people will discontinue their medi-cal benefits that they’re NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO. Get the fuck out of here with this horrible title and comments.", ">\n\nThis reads like a really unfortunate turn of events until you realize that it's Republicans doing what they were elected to do. Just more federal welfare states' misappropriation of tax dollars.", ">\n\nI just got kicked off Medicaid and had to buy private insurance. And I’m in California!!", ">\n\nDamn you, Obama, damn you!\n/s", ">\n\nHorrifying if true 🥹", ">\n\nThis article kinda sucks. It’s so vague and gives nearly 0 detail as to why or how people will lose it or what they could to to try to prevent losing it…", ">\n\nBiden signed a bill the takes away healthcare from people." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country.", ">\n\nEvery second comment asked to vote for the Democrats. You can't get universal health-care throw voting. Never happens anywhere in the world.\nYou have to organise outside the parliaments with unions and neighbourhood-committees to get the power to stop everything. There is no other strategy. Such a naive discussion.", ">\n\nYour take is way more naive than voting for politicians who support it. Most countries have gotten universal healthcare through the government and voting.", ">\n\nNot through just voting is what they mean.", ">\n\nDid anyone here bother to read the article?", ">\n\nYes people who have health insurance will likely lose it. Some bc of arbitrary income caps, some bc they moved, some bc states make it a giant pain in the ass to fill out all the paperwork. This will cause millions to no longer be able to afford healthcare, which is generally considered a bad thing. And the reason why them potentially qualifying for the ACA isn’t the answer is bc health insurance =/= health care. Every barrier, from language to change in residency to needing insurance approval, makes health outcomes worse.", ">\n\nThis is bull, medical has stopped discontinuing people for most reasons (besides like death). When they declare covid no longer a public emergency a LOT of people will discontinue their medi-cal benefits that they’re NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO. Get the fuck out of here with this horrible title and comments.", ">\n\nThis reads like a really unfortunate turn of events until you realize that it's Republicans doing what they were elected to do. Just more federal welfare states' misappropriation of tax dollars.", ">\n\nI just got kicked off Medicaid and had to buy private insurance. And I’m in California!!", ">\n\nDamn you, Obama, damn you!\n/s", ">\n\nHorrifying if true 🥹", ">\n\nThis article kinda sucks. It’s so vague and gives nearly 0 detail as to why or how people will lose it or what they could to to try to prevent losing it…", ">\n\nBiden signed a bill the takes away healthcare from people.", ">\n\nFox News is this you? Lol." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country.", ">\n\nEvery second comment asked to vote for the Democrats. You can't get universal health-care throw voting. Never happens anywhere in the world.\nYou have to organise outside the parliaments with unions and neighbourhood-committees to get the power to stop everything. There is no other strategy. Such a naive discussion.", ">\n\nYour take is way more naive than voting for politicians who support it. Most countries have gotten universal healthcare through the government and voting.", ">\n\nNot through just voting is what they mean.", ">\n\nDid anyone here bother to read the article?", ">\n\nYes people who have health insurance will likely lose it. Some bc of arbitrary income caps, some bc they moved, some bc states make it a giant pain in the ass to fill out all the paperwork. This will cause millions to no longer be able to afford healthcare, which is generally considered a bad thing. And the reason why them potentially qualifying for the ACA isn’t the answer is bc health insurance =/= health care. Every barrier, from language to change in residency to needing insurance approval, makes health outcomes worse.", ">\n\nThis is bull, medical has stopped discontinuing people for most reasons (besides like death). When they declare covid no longer a public emergency a LOT of people will discontinue their medi-cal benefits that they’re NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO. Get the fuck out of here with this horrible title and comments.", ">\n\nThis reads like a really unfortunate turn of events until you realize that it's Republicans doing what they were elected to do. Just more federal welfare states' misappropriation of tax dollars.", ">\n\nI just got kicked off Medicaid and had to buy private insurance. And I’m in California!!", ">\n\nDamn you, Obama, damn you!\n/s", ">\n\nHorrifying if true 🥹", ">\n\nThis article kinda sucks. It’s so vague and gives nearly 0 detail as to why or how people will lose it or what they could to to try to prevent losing it…", ">\n\nBiden signed a bill the takes away healthcare from people.", ">\n\nFox News is this you? Lol.", ">\n\nThank goodness there’s a robust job market right now! That alone should reduce dependence on Medicaid. Factories in low cost of living areas are begging people to come make 20 dollars an hour + benefits." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country.", ">\n\nEvery second comment asked to vote for the Democrats. You can't get universal health-care throw voting. Never happens anywhere in the world.\nYou have to organise outside the parliaments with unions and neighbourhood-committees to get the power to stop everything. There is no other strategy. Such a naive discussion.", ">\n\nYour take is way more naive than voting for politicians who support it. Most countries have gotten universal healthcare through the government and voting.", ">\n\nNot through just voting is what they mean.", ">\n\nDid anyone here bother to read the article?", ">\n\nYes people who have health insurance will likely lose it. Some bc of arbitrary income caps, some bc they moved, some bc states make it a giant pain in the ass to fill out all the paperwork. This will cause millions to no longer be able to afford healthcare, which is generally considered a bad thing. And the reason why them potentially qualifying for the ACA isn’t the answer is bc health insurance =/= health care. Every barrier, from language to change in residency to needing insurance approval, makes health outcomes worse.", ">\n\nThis is bull, medical has stopped discontinuing people for most reasons (besides like death). When they declare covid no longer a public emergency a LOT of people will discontinue their medi-cal benefits that they’re NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO. Get the fuck out of here with this horrible title and comments.", ">\n\nThis reads like a really unfortunate turn of events until you realize that it's Republicans doing what they were elected to do. Just more federal welfare states' misappropriation of tax dollars.", ">\n\nI just got kicked off Medicaid and had to buy private insurance. And I’m in California!!", ">\n\nDamn you, Obama, damn you!\n/s", ">\n\nHorrifying if true 🥹", ">\n\nThis article kinda sucks. It’s so vague and gives nearly 0 detail as to why or how people will lose it or what they could to to try to prevent losing it…", ">\n\nBiden signed a bill the takes away healthcare from people.", ">\n\nFox News is this you? Lol.", ">\n\nThank goodness there’s a robust job market right now! That alone should reduce dependence on Medicaid. Factories in low cost of living areas are begging people to come make 20 dollars an hour + benefits.", ">\n\nA job doesn’t guarantee health insurance. And health insurance doesn’t guarantee health care." ]

[ "You know what would solve this?\nUniversal healthcare. \nBut noooooo. We Americans have a fucking hard on for paying a middleman absolutely fucktons of money to deny us medical procedures and aid when our doctors order it. We let non-medical professionals determine if a health issue that we suffer from is worth spending money on. \nAll because Republicans convinced their fucking morons of a base that “death panels” are a thing and somehow, paying a corporation hand over fist is more expensive than paying taxes. Completely ignoring the fact that you could just go to your employer and say “Hey. Those premiums you were paying for me to have bullshit coverage? Yeah pay those to me directly now since my healthcare is covered by my taxes.”\nIt is so goddamn ridiculous.\nEdit: Fixed typo.", ">\n\nDeath panels already exist within insurance companies. Ask any clinician about “prior authorizations”. I frequently have to fight with insurance about the utility of getting a brain MRI or standard of care medication for my patients with brain cancer.", ">\n\nBest part is that in the Netherlands ( and europe) we have universal healthcare, and we spend less per person then you guys in the USA. \nWe pay around $130 p/month p/p and a deductible ( once p/ year) of around €500,- \nFor that we get everything, dentist, physiotherapy , doctor, hospital, ambulance and so on.\nAnd, our life expectancy is better compared to you guys. (But we obviously don't go around shooting each other because we have strict gun laws, this could make a difference /s)", ">\n\nRubbing salt in our wounds. We’ve been telling our fellow Americans this for decades but they won’t believe us", ">\n\nSorry, but it.is so stupid to keep going with your current system it really makes me wonder how come that you guys are not able to change such an important thing for the good.", ">\n\nBelieve me, I know how stupid it is. I’m personally in a better position with regards to health care in that my employer provides what passes in the US for good health care benefits, but whenever I see a conservative posting a go fund me campaign in order to pay for necessary health care, r want to bang my head against the wall. I think part of the problem is the size and relative isolation of the US. Only fairly well off Americans can afford to visit other countries and our media is completely American centric, this means it’s much easier for corporate media to spread lies about how much worse it is in countries with universal healthcare. I have had numerous conversations with people who actually believe we have the best healthcare system in the world, and countries with universal health care results in your government trying to kill you in order to save money. It’s absurd but I haven’t been able to convince them otherwise", ">\n\nEven the concept of \" go fund me\" for pretty standard health care stuns me every fucking time. \nIt is used here also, but it is only used for new, non approved treatments. So you don't see them often.\nIn my town ( 28.000 residents) I think 2 in the past decade.", ">\n\nI had a friend who had an infected tooth and was unemployed at the time so he was faced with a choice of paying his rent and getting the infected tooth taken care of. This went on for months until I couldn’t take it anymore and insisted that he get it taken care and I would pay for it. It cost $250. But the number of Americans who go without necessary care because they don’t have the money is staggering. The biggest tragedy of it is that the US has enough money that it doesn’t need to be like this.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they chose the prescription pain reliever that let them keep working over the antibiotics to kill the infection, because they couldn't afford both after paying to see a dentist or doctor.", ">\n\nPeople have died because they attempted to stretch out their insulin supply by taking less than the necessary dose because they couldn’t afford the cost. I had a friend with cancer who was going to delay his next chemo treatment because he couldn’t afford it, but because he had cancer was too sick to work to earn the money. The type of cancer he had is very treatable and rarely does anyone die from it if they get appropriate treatment. Fortunately for him someone chipped in to get it for him, but not everyone in that position is fortunate enough to have someone do so. And nobody should be in that position in the first place. And even someone like me who’s in the fortunate position of having good health insurance our system still sucks. I’m really tired of my current job and would like to make a switch. I could easily get a different job with an equivalent salary, but none of the options I’ve been able to find come with anything close to the health coverage I currently have. I realize that compared to people dying from curable diseases, this is a lesser problem, but whate that my healthcare is tied to my employment, so I can’t switch careers and maintain good health care.", ">\n\nThat should read - Millions of Americans live in states where they’ve elected GOP governors who are going to drop them from Medicaid coverage.", ">\n\nIt's not just reliant on the governor. They could be like Wisconsin where, despite having a Democrat in the governor's office, our gerrymandered Republican legislature has refused millions upon millions of federal money for healthcare since 2010 because we like sending our federal tax dollars to other states on principle to show how much our state's GOP disliked Obama or something. They never really did a good job of explaining why we were refusing getting our own tax money back, just that we had to because it was the right thing to do.\nWe get a chance to change that next year in our Supreme Court election, as that would allow us to finally get off the Republican maps, making it possible for Democrats to actually write laws when they win elections here. It's been well over a decade since that was possible.\nPoint is it isn't just governors. In some states, even if people vote for people who wouldn't do this, it doesn't matter because of stuff like this:\nOld Gerrymandered Maps from Walker era:\n2012 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 39 seats, 52.83% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 60 seats, 45.89% of the total vote\n\n2014 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 46.6% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 52.3% of the total vote\n\n2016 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 45.45% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 51.69% of the total vote\n\n2018 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 36 seats, 52.99% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 63 seats, 44.75% of the total vote\n\n2020 Election:\n\nDemocrats: 38 seats. 45.29% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 61 seats, 53.80% of the total vote\n\nNew Re-Gerrymandered maps given to us by our Republican Courts picking the Republican maps over fair maps:\n\nDemocrats: 35 seats, 51% of the total vote\nRepublicans: 64 seats, 48% of the total vote", ">\n\nThat sounds corrupt even fraudulent", ">\n\nThe GOP controls the courts here, though they might lose that majority next year. They get to decide what's corrupt and what isn't.", ">\n\nIf it involves a Republican, GOP courts never think there is corruption. Many are appointed by the most corrupt president this nation has ever known.", ">\n\nAny poor person who voted Republican is a fucking idiot.", ">\n\nPoverty will do that to you", ">\n\nMake sure to thank your republican friends.", ">\n\nYeah, those evil republicans…(actually reads article)….making sure that only people who are eligible for Medicaid receive Medicaid. How dare they.", ">\n\nI don't think you read the article either...", ">\n\nAmericans think guns are more important for your health than healthcare.", ">\n\nHealthcare isn’t in the constitution but guns are!\nI would put a /s but this is seriously how some on the right think….", ">\n\nAnd the fact that you’re using the phrase “is a right” differently. Republicans don’t expect anyone else to buy their guns for them.", ">\n\nThe US healthcare system is abhorrent.\nWe need universal healthcare desperately, but the system is rigged to prevent that from happening. This is why I don't understand people who hate Bernie Sanders. The man would have fought tooth and nail to get Medicare for All passed as president, among a thousand other great policies. Even if he had fallen short, he would have gotten something far better than what we have now. Our current leaders won't even fight for a public option. Oh, but he's not a Democrat... and he has three houses... something something chairs...", ">\n\nI guarantee if Congress proposed \"universal healthcare but for white people only\" it would have overwhelming bipartisan support, and probably a ton of support from rural/suburban America too.", ">\n\nIsn't it time to give universal health care a chance?", ">\n\nIts been time...", ">\n\nRepublicans hate the right to life.", ">\n\nUS Healthcare is a disgrace- absolutely immoral.", ">\n\nThis is why private healthcare is garbage. Why are we all okay paying a middle man and allowing these crooks (private healthcare industry) to dig deeper in our pockets.", ">\n\nI work for a non profit health insurer in MD, and this is exactly what has been going on for a long time. It's called redetermination, and it is just checking to make sure you are still eligible for coverage under medicaid. People naturally move on and off medicaid depending on their circumstances. I'm personally an advocate for universal Healthcare and think this system is silly, but this isn't much of a story. The article doesn't do a great job of laying this out.", ">\n\nThis should be at the top.\nDuring the public health emergency, no one had to reenroll in medicaid, and so the number of people has being growing since the start of the pandemic, and includes people who otherwise would have no longer needed coverage over the previous 2+ years.\nThey are just reinstituting what has always been around previously, the redetermination requirement. People who still need Medicaid will either get autorenrolled because they are on WIC or Food Stamps or what not, and the people who otherwise still need it can reenroll.\nAll being perfect, no one who actually needs medicaid will lose it, just the people who don't need it anymore. Of course there will be people who don't redetermine and should, but that always happened in the past and they can still reenroll later.\nThe only reason this is a headline is because it hasn't happened in almost 3 years, so the number of people going off medicaid all at once is much higher.", ">\n\nI wonder how many of them voted Republican.", ">\n\nHow has there not been a collective alternative where a company takes fees from clients and just covers all medical expenses similar to canadian, Scandinavian or european countries governments do with their health care?\nSimilar to an insurance company, in fee collection, but like (non- US) government in its access.", ">\n\nRepublicans would vote themselves into slavery to own the libs", ">\n\nGeography as an arbiter of who can have mere partial coverage for necessary health care and equitable access to necessary health care is the same, inherently\nSHIT ARBITER\nit always was.", ">\n\nThe biggest problem with Medicaid is the eligibility rates are way too low for single people to begin with. They want you on the benefit cliff paying thousands into insurance which ends up making people worse off. \nYou can only make 17k a year before you get kicked. \nSo if you make 18-20k have a 5k deductible and need to use your insurance? You do the math. You're likely to have even less money than if you were able to keep Medicaid if you have health issues + monthly fees. These are not rich people! 20K is not living in luxury! In many HCL areas, it's poverty. \nMedicaid should be raised to include more people, not less. This is gonna cause a lot of pain during times people are struggling worse than ever.", ">\n\nI was on medicaid shortly after the Obama expansion. I only qualified because I had just gotten married to someone who didn't work, so I managed to be under the income guidelines. But then a couple years later, I got a $1/hr raise that pushed me like $41/mo over the medicaid threshold. Even though my employer paid 100% of my premiums, I still had to pay thousands of dollars in copays, medication, and non-covered services (out of network, deductible not met, etc). so that extra $1900/yr cost me a minimum of $4000/yr. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Health is currency and if you don't have it, then die and decrease the surplus population, as Scrooge said.", ">\n\nMillions of American's vote for this kind of thing.", ">\n\nMillions of Americans have shit for brains and think that bashing on the rights of women, gay and Trans Americans is more important than keeping medical coverage for themselves or their parents.\nThe Fifth Column is suppressed by tech giants. \nPeople will just continue to die. That's the pro-life policy that Jesus would have wanted...", ">\n\nDemocrats need better messaging on this. Im particularly curious on what % of GOP voters receive Medicaid, Social Security, or Medicare and what the average benefits are because both are probably higher than most think.\n\"Did you vote GOP? If so, you may be in the 75% who will be on the hook for an extra $40k a year when they kill your critical social services.\" Full stop.", ">\n\nRed states are coasting on this public health measure. They need to lose it and either explain it to their constituents (gas-light them) or vote to expand Medicaid in their states like they should have a decade ago.", ">\n\nMan. I work as a marketer in the senior living industry. You all have NO idea how much you'll rely on medicaid when you're old. Like. The fact that folks are going to lose THE ONLY RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO ASSURE A COMFORTABLE END OF DAYS. And the fact that people who don't understand medicaid all voted on it... its. This will be an absolute national emergency. \nThe minimum amount for assisted living, in a RURAL community, is about $5,000/mo. Medicaid covers ALL of that if you qualify. \nThis will put seniors on the streets or back at home, and they will die there. If you voted for this I hope you're ready to pony up $5k a month, or be ready to hire in home care (about the same depending on levels of care), because caring for a dying loved one is not easy.", ">\n\nIs Medicaid used in addition to Medicare?", ">\n\nYes, basically. Medicaid is different in that it provides for more than just medical services. Everything from hospice care to living assistance.", ">\n\nWay to go, Boomers! Get screwed by your own votes. May the leopard eat your face.", ">\n\nJust saying, my mother was a single mother of 2, a great nurse, she had a great job and we were never left for wanting. One day she got vertigo and lost her license, not even 50 years old. I was the oldest at 14. That was the last year I experienced a house full of presents on Christmas. Which I’m fine with, because if it wasn’t for social programs like Medicaid, we would have lost the house, had to move, who knows if I stay in school or drop out to help with the finances. \nThese programs aren’t crutches for the vast majority of people who use them, and without them, you grow a number of people and future generations who then do need them. We were able to go to college and get good jobs to then contribute back into society. You can fax me 50% if it means our society is becoming better and we lifting the floor", ">\n\nNearly 2023 and people are once again being deprived of Medicaid. My wish for those responsible for next year? Fall upon really hard times so you know how it feels to be robbed of certain things...", ">\n\nAll the bill says is that states will be allowed to reevaluate who can stay on Medicaid. It doesn't force states to kick anyone off afaik.", ">\n\nYou're right, and these people normally wouldn't be allowed on Medicaid in the first place based on their current day income/job situation. The only they are on Medicaid today is because they qualified at some point during COVID due to a loss of income or their job and there was a moratorium on removing people.", ">\n\nThanks GOP", ">\n\nAnd yet here we are, surrounded by incredibly stupid, selfish, downright moronic neighbors who continue to vote for tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, instead of Universal Healthcare like almost every godamn country on earth reaps the benefits of. It is exhausting having to share an existence with my fellow Americans. I bid you all a most unhappy New Year. Seriously. Get fucked.", ">\n\nAnd the same people who continue to vote against their own interests by supporting politicians that don't have their best interest in mind are the ones complaining about how they're not satisfied with where the country is heading.", ">\n\nJust a normal day in the good 'ol US of A. Nothing to see here folks.\nThe people (politicians) that have free healthcare in the US that's paid for by taxpayers are the same people blocking universal healthcare for all Americans. And they wonder most politicians are despised in this fucking country.", ">\n\nEvery second comment asked to vote for the Democrats. You can't get universal health-care throw voting. Never happens anywhere in the world.\nYou have to organise outside the parliaments with unions and neighbourhood-committees to get the power to stop everything. There is no other strategy. Such a naive discussion.", ">\n\nYour take is way more naive than voting for politicians who support it. Most countries have gotten universal healthcare through the government and voting.", ">\n\nNot through just voting is what they mean.", ">\n\nDid anyone here bother to read the article?", ">\n\nYes people who have health insurance will likely lose it. Some bc of arbitrary income caps, some bc they moved, some bc states make it a giant pain in the ass to fill out all the paperwork. This will cause millions to no longer be able to afford healthcare, which is generally considered a bad thing. And the reason why them potentially qualifying for the ACA isn’t the answer is bc health insurance =/= health care. Every barrier, from language to change in residency to needing insurance approval, makes health outcomes worse.", ">\n\nThis is bull, medical has stopped discontinuing people for most reasons (besides like death). When they declare covid no longer a public emergency a LOT of people will discontinue their medi-cal benefits that they’re NO LONGER ELIGIBLE TO. Get the fuck out of here with this horrible title and comments.", ">\n\nThis reads like a really unfortunate turn of events until you realize that it's Republicans doing what they were elected to do. Just more federal welfare states' misappropriation of tax dollars.", ">\n\nI just got kicked off Medicaid and had to buy private insurance. And I’m in California!!", ">\n\nDamn you, Obama, damn you!\n/s", ">\n\nHorrifying if true 🥹", ">\n\nThis article kinda sucks. It’s so vague and gives nearly 0 detail as to why or how people will lose it or what they could to to try to prevent losing it…", ">\n\nBiden signed a bill the takes away healthcare from people.", ">\n\nFox News is this you? Lol.", ">\n\nThank goodness there’s a robust job market right now! That alone should reduce dependence on Medicaid. Factories in low cost of living areas are begging people to come make 20 dollars an hour + benefits.", ">\n\nA job doesn’t guarantee health insurance. And health insurance doesn’t guarantee health care.", ">\n\nDo we blame Trump for this one too?" ]

[]

[ "What you clean with?" ]