[1] https://theathletic.com/3187914/2022/03/16/mlbs-collective-b...
[2] https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/dodgers-renew-contract-fo...
You cannot appear in a game without being on the 25 man roster (40 after the late season roster expansion).
I was pointing out the assertion that he was "homeless" during his playing days, which doesn't pass the most basic smell test. For one thing, teams arrange at least temporary housing for rookies and recent call ups.
Records show over $2 million in career earnings: https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/los-angeles-dodgers/andrew-toles...
"MAR 23 2018 Signed a 1 year $555,000 contract with Los Angeles (LAD)
FEB 24 2017 Signed a 1 year $540,000 contract with Los Angeles (LAD)"
Not set for life money, certainly, but far from homeless.
(I don’t care how unpopular this view is on hacker news, I stand by it. I’m ashamed sometimes that this forum is so harshly capitalist and thrives on grinding poor humans into proverbial paste, because otherwise everyone here is pretty kind and supportive of each other.)
The argument in favor is financial. But anyone with halfway decent medical coverage - tech workers, government employees, retirees, union workers, etc, it’s almost certainly going to go down.
Part of the reason is that Americans do get pretty decent care when they can afford it.
I can tell you personal horror stories about my time in Europe and ex-Europe.
I’d say the real problem in America isn’t even payment - it’s how medical information is siloed and treated like proprietary data. Usually under the guise of patient privacy.
>"In 2022, private health insurance coverage continued to be more prevalent than public coverage, at 65.6 percent and 36.1 percent, respectively."
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-28...
Arguably, private insurance will still exist for the upper class. So the top 10% or so will likely be unaffected. It would just further increase any inequality that currently exists. (The current proposals are Medicare for all and not a state run facilities)
Medicare as it currently exists is not “free at point of service”, or even “affordable at point of service.” There’s the Medicare gap, etc.
Medicare isn’t really set up to be a universal program. It assumes that providers have non-Medicare patients, and regularly uses that fact to calibrate the program.
I'm not a proponent of single payer because I don't think it addresses the root problem of the absolutely broken anti-patient incentives of a system that has long ago been destroyed by bureaucracy. But I'm not an opponent of single payer either - I just don't think it's the panacea people think it is.
I totally agree. Payment isn’t the problem.
But I’ve had similar experiences with doctors in European and ex-European nations.
If I could make one change to the healthcare system, it would be a universal healthcare records system.
It’s nuts this is treated like it’s proprietary data.
My problem with your previous comment is that you just baselessly asserted that healthcare standards would go down with single payer, which is a common political talking point that completely ignores how the industry has already been captured and destroyed by private corporate bureaucracy (ie we already have "death panels", only they each consist of a single malpracticing doctor with a computer algorithm and an autosigner). Payment isn't the underlying problem of why healthcare is so bad, but it's certainly another problem for many people who go receive (shoddy) healthcare, and then afterwards end up at the pointy end of fraudulent billing shakedowns.
Not for core health care competencies. That wouldn’t be universal coverage.
When I say “quality would go down” in talking about actual health care.
Having a system where you have to pay extra to have a good doctor sound suspiciously like the current system, except it’s usually your employer paying extra.
Yes, as an upper-middle-class salaryman, my care is above average. If I don't like what Uncle Sam provides, I can buy additional coverage/care. No change for me.
For everybody with worse coverage and less income? They're already receiving worse care than most of Western Europe.
My personal point of reference: Scottish immigrant, with substatial family in Scotland, Ireland, and Australia. Both white collar and working class.
It's costing him an arm a leg and his kid is not getting potentially important treatment because of it.
But I have heard endless talking points about how "You'll just wait until you die under a single payer" or that care will degrade. It's sad. I've had arguments with people about this and they can only repeat those talking points and pretend they have personal experience with people in other countries because some talking head on the radio told them "The Brits are always waiting for their healthcare some die before getting there"
I was part of these people a decade ago. I've grown a lot since then and the time there has become a huge learning experience because I now see how manipulated I was. I thought I was "informed" because I listened to these talking heads tell me what to think all day. Truth is, I feel more informed today. I learn from whatever comes up but everything comes through a lens of "This may be special interests manipulating me."
Anyway, yeah. Long story short, from my perspective at least, the people against it don't really know why they're against it. They've just been told to think that and they think that makes them informed. The reality is our healthcare system is trash and will bankrupt anyone but the richest people in the case of an emergency but a huge percentage of the US is against making it better because SOCIALISM.
There are many people who oppose things they don't understand because they haven't looked. There are also people who oppose things temporarily because they looked but have unanswered questions or some of the details don't make sense. We'd probably make more headway working to convince the people who will listen than trying to convince people who are ideologically opposed.
What fraction of America has socialized health care already? Half, more or less? It doesn't seem like a big leap to go all-in.
So we have a pretty good basis to figure what it would look like to make that number 100%.
I agree it’s complex, too bad no one is smart enough to solve it.
I think a lot of the negative response to your comment is how you framed it and the questionable content (having fewer insured people doesn't necessarily make care more affordable; in fact the point of the ACA was to increase affordability through increased coverage, although the effects on gross costs seem negligible).
Yes, things would not be as good if they pulled the contract. But Medicaid is an option, so it's not like he'd have no care at all and one doesn't need to "pay out the ass" for that.
I don’t really care about the downvotes, that’s what the button is for. I’m also neurodivergent and don’t really communicate my thoughts well so I’m used to it.