• OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The entire industry is built on catering to the vast swaths of women who get ignored by doctors and need somewhere to turn.

      I highly suspect doctors are taught in medical school, “women are over emotional and prone to exaggeration.”

      Hell, “hysteria” was considered a valid diagnosis until the 1950s.

      • Enigma@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was suffering from hyperemisis last year and it took 3 doctors before I finally found one to take me seriously, which I consider it lucky it only took 3. The last doc I was practically on my hands and knees begging them to take me seriously.

        In the middle of all that I also ended up with pneumonia. Normally I never get sick so I was like wtf is going on. But anyways, a doctor finally took some chest x rays and 2 weeks later they call to tell me that my X-ray was clear. I. Went. Off. I ended up having to go to the ER 2 days after the doctor visit because I could no longer breathe, it was so painful. How is it possible that my x ray was clear??? Then another week goes by and the assistant calls to tell me that I do have pneumonia and a prescription has been sent in. I just hung up and filed complaints with everyone I could. That office was a hot mess.

    • Fondots@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      People always chime in with stories about how chiropractors helped them with XY and Z problem they were having.

      And overall I don’t doubt them. There’s a lot of things that can go wrong with your spine or other joints, and I’m certain that some of them can be addressed by physically manipulating and adjusting it.

      But the basic premise of chiropractic treatments is that basically all human ailments can be fixed in that way, which should sound like total bullshit to anyone with half a brain. And that’s before you get into all spiritual nonsense that pervades a lot of the field.

      Now some of them understand that that’s a load of bullshit and may even be realistic about the things they can treat, but it can be pretty damn hard to sort them out from the ones who think that your pancreatic cancer is caused by ghosts in your spine and they know how to get them out or some bullshit like that.

      Now if you have a good idea what your issue is and what needs to be done to fix it, take the time to carefully vet your chiropractor to make sure they’re not going to try some crazy bullshit on you, you very well may be able to get a decent treatment from them. Maybe you’ll even be able to save some money going with that.

      But for most of us who aren’t doctors and so only have kind of vague ideas what exactly the issue is and that the treatments we’re doing actually make any sense, and don’t necessarily have time to do all of that research and carefully vet that the person treating them isn’t secretly a quack, you could just get the same sort of treatments from actually physical therapists, orthopedists, physiatrists, etc. with the added benefit of them actually understanding the issues and how to fix them properly.

      Chiropractors are kind of like the rednecks of the medicine world. Some of them know exactly what they’re doing with that harbor freight welder, they may not do things by the book but they know for certain what works and what doesn’t and more importantly know when something is beyond what them and their buddies can accomplish on a free Saturday with a case of beer and when they need to suck it up and limp their truck to the shop and let a professional deal with it. Others know just enough to be dangerous and while they can get the job done 90% of the time or at least not make things worse, that 10% of the time something is literally going to blow up in someone’s face. And still others are just meth heads looking to make a quick buck and it’s a miracle they’re not behind bars. And when you see them hanging around the local watering hole, it may not be totally clear which is which until it’s too late.

  • GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    Private health insurance is the biggest fucking scam ever. The private insurance companies benefit by getting the aggregate healthiest population into their plans (working adults). The most likely to be expensive people, i.e. old people (on medicare) or poor people (on medicaid, or not even on an insurance plan) are on government, tax payer insurance plans. There is literally no reason except for corporate profiteering that Medicare should not be expanded to cover all people.

    Also all those conversations, especially in the 2020 election period, were totally bullshit. You say something like M4A will cost 44 trillion dollars or whatever, which sounds like an insane amount of money. What is often left out of the discussion is that estimated cost was 1) over 10 years and 2) has to be weighed against the current costs we already pay for insurance. So the deal was very simple: the overall costs would go down because the overall spending would be less, and at the same time millions of people without coverage would be covered, and at the same time you don’t have to contemplate stupid bullshit like in network, out of network providers. Or ever again talk to your insurance about why something is or isn’t covered. Boils my blood when I think too much about this.

    Not even gonna weigh in on things like how medicare can’t negotiate prescription drug prices (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/23/us/politics/medicare-drug-price-negotiations-lawsuits.html), or how dental, vision, and hearing are treated separately from general healthcare, or how med school is prohibitively expensive, or how the residents after med school are overworked because the guy who institutionalize that practice was literally a cokehead. Those are all just bonus topics. The point is we are getting fleeced.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Private insurance (for the average person) in general is dumb. We have a collective need to insure various things against disaster, and realistically the federal government shells out huge amounts for most disasters anyways (after the so called insurance companies go bankrupt).

      So why the heck are we paying a premium for all of the overhead of the insurance companies?! It’s this massive inefficient system that doesn’t work, while the “government as insurance” system works great, and doesn’t require nearly as much overhead. There’s no room for private sector insurance to inovate, because there’s nothing to inovate on; IMO, the private insurance industry contributes nothing of value to society except jobs that it pays for by forcing everyone to engage with it.

      The insurance industry in general is betting you’ll be fine, and you’re betting “maybe I won’t.” It’s extra bad for medicine because they stick their head even into the small stuff, not just “I need a 10,000 unexpected hospital bill covered.”

  • MiDaBa@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The stock market and publicly traded companies. The idea that a business that is making consistent profits isn’t good unless those profits are increased each quarter is asinine. This system of shortsighted hyper focus on short term quarterly growth for the sake of growth is the cause of so much pain and suffering in the world. Even companies with amazing financials will work to push workers compensation down, cut corners and exploit loopholes to make sure their profits are always growing. Consistent large profits aren’t good enough.

    • AssholeDestroyer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Instapot. Instapot made too good of a product, most people buy one and its good for years. That’s good for consumers but terrible for investors. The company that bought them out and took them public saddled them with a ton of debt from other sectors and now they’re bankrupt.

  • 1984@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Subscriptions.

    People pay every month but most don’t use the sub to it’s full value, and forget how expensive it becomes over the years. And you don’t own anything on a subscription, you just borrow it.

    Also trial periods that prolong automatically into subscriptions.

  • Square Singer@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unpaid overtime.

    Framing “fulfilling your contract” as “silent quitting”.

    In what other context would be “delivering what’s in the contract” anything less than satisfactory?

    When I buy a litre of milk and the box contains exactly a litre of milk it isn’t “silent stealing” either.

  • unscholarly_source@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    My personal top 3:

    • insurance
    • subscriptions
    • Google and similar data hungry companies (while not a financial scam but moreso a privacy scam, companies like Google and Meta profiteering on our personal data without our knowledge or awareness)
    • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Technically insurance only works if everybody pays in. Wouldn’t work as a concept if every tom dick and harry could pay them $100 then a week later need $100,000. They’d basically be out of business right quick with nothing to provide for anyone. Maybe as some believe it should just be provided through taxes, but it’s certainly not a scam.

      • Dandroid@dandroid.app
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        But the problem is that medical costs are only as high as they are because of insurance. Hospitals started making up fake, artificially high prices because insurance companies wanted a discount for referring patients to their hospital.

    • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      worse than that is professors being required by the school’s contract with the textbook company to tell you to buy a book that they have no intent on using because it’s awful. that was way way more common for me.

      • dogebread@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And the versioning of those textbooks to make sure it can sell for exactly nothing.

    • bufordt@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In 1988 I had to buy a book for my chemistry lab that cost $80. It was 70 xeroxed pages in a 3 ring binder.

    • AdmiralShat@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This! My English teacher in my first year required us to buy a specific book that she wrote from a specific book store for $250. You had to bring it and the receipt in proving you bought it and aren’t just sharing with someone else.

      We then opened the table of contents to “go over” the book and never touched it again.

      She then said “you should probably leave those here so you don’t forget them”. Never fucking touched it again.

  • Wedding rings/diamonds in general.

    The tradition isn’t as old as people think and was literally started by a jewelry company to sell more jewelry. Specifically diamonds, which are not as rare as commonly believed and if not for the false scarcity and misinformation, would be dirt cheap.

    • pascal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Diamonds were fairly rare when we used to mine them in Asia and America. And it’s a nice shiny stone which is also very durable.

      Then, we found out Africa is actually full of diamonds and DeBeers said “we can’t have that!” and started buying all the African diamonds to keep them away to artificially inflate the price and scarcity.

      Then we found out we can make them in labs better than the mined ones and DeBeers sai “that’s not a natural diamond, you don’t want that!” and so on.

      The whole marketing about “A diamond is forever!” is to make you think you’ll never want to sell your diamon ring, so you don’t find out your precious gift paid $2,000 is actually wortth $50.

      An EA spokeperson would say “it’s all about the experience”.

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unregulated capitalism imo. I don’t buy the idea I’ve seen around here that capitalism itself is the problem and switching to communism would solve all the problems. Both are systems that have merit, but when left unchecked all the power and money will go to the few, like we have now.

      • Nevoic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If by “have merit” you mean “has some positive aspects”, sure. Every system has merit. Slavery had merit (slave owners got cheap cotton). The Holocaust had merit (antisemites felt better). The issue is weighing the merit against the negatives. You can’t just say two systems have positive aspects and call it a day.

        Are you a fan of democracy or authoritarianism? Capitalism is a system where productive forces are driven undemocratically, in the name of profit instead of by worker democracy. The commodification of everything exists in a world of private property:

        • our bodies (labor power)
        • our thoughts (intellectual property)
        • the specific ordering of bits on a hard drive you own (digital media, DRM)
        • the means of production (which exist as a result of collective knowledge, infrastructure, and labor)

        These things being commodified and privatized are ridiculous in any democratic, non-capitalist system.

        However, these ridiculous conditions are absolutely necessary in a capitalist society. Without them the system falls apart. And as society continues to progress, the situation gets more and more ridiculous.

        What about when AI “takes away” jobs for 50% of Americans (as in capitalists fire humans in favor of AI)? That’ll collapse our society. Less work would be a good thing in any reasonable system, but not in capitalism. Less work is an existential threat to our society.

        If we ever have an AI that is as capable as humans are intellectually, the only work left for us will be manual labor. If that happens, and robots get to the point of matching our physical abilities, we won’t be employable anymore. The two classes will no longer be owners and workers, they’ll be owners and non-owners. At that point we better have dismantled capitalism, because if we don’t then we’ll just be starving in the street, along with the millions who die every year from starvation under the boot of global capitalism.

        • Steeve@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Everying in your comment can be solved with regulation. A capitalist society can enact socialist policies to take care of the lower class or unemployed. It’s not a “pick one” situation.

          You’re arguing against the unregulated capitalism we live in, but also comparing capitalism as it exists today to fuckin slavery is just a ridiculous false equivalence.

          • Nevoic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I didn’t compare capitalism to slavery. I said the word slavery. The first paragraph wasn’t demonstrating a comparison, it was demonstrating a principle (principles are universalized, comparisons aren’t). The idea that every system has positives, but those systems can still be horrifically bad.

            I don’t know if it’s emotion that’s clouding your reading comprehension, I hope it is, because then you can calm down and have a reasonable conversation. If it’s not, then this conversation isn’t worth having because you won’t understand half of what I’m saying. Literally 50% of your last message was you misrepresenting what I was saying.

            A capitalist society cannot enact socialist policies. It can enact “social” policies. These policies are inspired by socialism, and often advocated for by socialists, but the policies themselves are not socialist policies. Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are privately owned, and socialism is an economic system where the means of production are socially owned. If private (not personal) property exists, it’s not socialism. It’s not necessarily capitalism (you could have other systems with private property), but in our world it always is.

            Welfare capitalism, where these social policies exist, is a well established ideology that has been around for about 80 years in any serious form, and yeah welfare can be used to address some of the negative tendencies of capitalism, but it doesn’t fix them. It’s applying a band-aid fix, not addressing the problem. In the real world what this means is there’s a class of people always working to remove those regulations and welfare because their class interests are opposed to ours.

            Class distinctions cannot be solved with a regulation, they have to be solved with a societal restructuring. Our legal system does not support the idea of abolishing private property and by extension classes.

            • Steeve@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah bud, I’m not reading past your second paragraph. Go gaslight and be and be an asshole on Reddit.

    • MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      A lot of people are saying Capitalism. Is it straight up capitalism that is the scam or the myth of financial mobility? (the American dream)

      • OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There’s a lot of trouble with definitions regarding capitalism. (I’d call them intentional since muddying the waters serves the people who benefit from our current system.)

        Pick any person who is complaining about “capitalism” right now.

        If you proposed a system where everything was structured the same as it is right now, HOWEVER instead of shareholders and owners possessing companies, every, single company was a worker cooperative (owned and controlled by its workers) then I am 95% sure the anti-capitalist you picked would

        1. Not consider that capitalism, and
        2. Vastly prefer that over what we have right now

        With some minor variation. (Tankies don’t think it’s possible to maintain such a system without monopolizing violence. Anarcho-communists wouldn’t be too happy about the scope and financial power of state and federal governments, and would seek to pare them down. Democratic socialists would think it was perfect. Little disagreements like that.)

        But I think most other people (people who aren’t anti-capitalists) would think “that’s just a form of capitalism” if I described the above.

        In fact, if I said,

        A free market system, but ownership and control of the means of production is only allowed collectively and democratically. No shareholders allowed, no transferable individual ownership allowed.

        Most ordinary people would consider that a form of capitalism. (Even though calling it capitalism is, technically, highly inaccurate). So it’s a difficult conversation to have. Because most “anti-capitalists” disagree with most “pro-capitalists” on the basic definition of what they are fighting or defending.

        I’m actually convinced that a lot of “pro-capitalists” are more eager to defend the free market system than they are to defend transferable, stock-marketable, individual ownership of the means of production. I think they would compromise on the latter if they could safeguard the former.

  • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Car dealerships. They are awful on purpose. In many places car manufacturers are not legally allowed to sell their cars directly to customers, in order to create what is essentially legally mandated car dealerships, which all suck.

    • qyron@lemmy.pt
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Buy from China.

      I took the gamble because I had the money to spare and never looked back again.

      The money I would pay for a set of glasses in my country goes easily over €300. With that amount, I can pay an ophthalmologist appointment, have my eyes checked by a doctor, properly, get the prescription, order two sets of glasses (one as a backup) and still have money to spare.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d prefer if restaurants just charged me what it costs to pay their staff a decent wage so I could skip the song and dance.

    • besux@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      How do you get college without tuition, affordable housing, or not-for-profit healthcare without taxes?

      The real scam is the widespread aversion to taxation.

    • s20@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with everything but voting. Not because we ever have great options, but because sometimes there are terrifyingly bad ones, and while option A might not be at all good, option B is so much worse.

      That’s why it’s called “the lesser of two evils.”

        • s20@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t seem to know what “lesser of two evils” means.

          It doesn’t mean “that guy’s bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!”

          It means “no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube.”

          I can’t do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can’t see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I’m to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I’m fucked no matter who I pick, so I’m sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor.

          I’m sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors.

          So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical.

          Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I’m a gullible moron instead.