Antiwork
A community for those who want to end work, are curious about ending work, want to get the most out of a work-free life, want more information on anti-work ideas and want personal help with their own jobs/work-related struggles.
The new place for c/antiwork@lemmy.fmhy.ml
This server is no longer working, and we had to move.
Active stats from all instances
Subscribers: 2.1k
Date Created: June 21, 2023
Library copied from reddit:
The Anti-Work Library 📚
Essential Reads
Start here! These are probably the most talked-about essays on the topic.
- The Abolition of Work by Bob Black (1985) | listen
- On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber (2013) | listen
- In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell (1932) | listen
c/Antiwork Rules
Tap or click to expand
1. Server Main Rules
The main rules of the server will be enforced stringently. https://lemmy.world/
2. No spam or reposts + limit off topic comments
Spamming posts will be removed. Reposts will be removed with the exception of a repost becoming the main hub for discussion on that topic.
Off topic comments that do not pertain to the post at hand may be removed if it is deemed they contribute nothing and/or foster hostility at users. This mostly applies to political and religious debate, but can be applied to other things at the mod’s discretion.
3. Post must have Antiwork/ Work Reform explicitly involved
Post must have Antiwork/Work Reform explicitly involved in some capacity. This can be talking about antiwork, work reform, laws, and ext.
4. Educate don’t attack
No mocking, demeaning, flamebaiting, purposeful antagonizing, trolling, hateful language, false accusation or allegation, or backseat moderating is allowed. Don’t resort to ad hominem attacks against another user or insult other people, examples of violations would be going after the person rather than the stance they take.
If we feel the comment is uncalled for we will remove it. Stay civil and there won’t be problems.
5. No Advertising
Under no circumstance are you allowed to promote or advertise any product or service
6. No factually misleading information
Content that makes claims or implications that can be proven false or misleading will be removed.
7. Headlines
If the title of the post isn’t an original title of the article then the first thing in the body of the post should be an original title written in this format “Original title: {title here}”.
8. Staff Discretion
Staff can take disciplinary action on offenses not listed in the rules when a community member's actions or general conduct creates a negative experience for another player and/or the community.
It is impossible to list every example or variation of the rules. It is also impossible to word everything perfectly. Players are expected to understand the intent of the rules and not attempt to "toe the line" or use loopholes to get around the intent of the rule.
Other Communities
Server status for big servers http://lemmy-status.org/
view the rest of the comments
Two weeks ago people were posting stats on the front page showing the industry average denied claims is around 16% and UnitedHealth denies double that at 32%, so that means the vast majority of claims are approved even for the worst examples.
68% in particular is stretching the term “vast majority” especially when that 32% is people who pay for insurance every fucking month for the explicit purpose of being covered.
They aren’t asking for a handout. They are entitled to this coverage. They paid for it already!
This, I'm tired of the 1% saying we "Just want free stuff", like we're demanding Xboxes and snazzy T-Shirts with pictures of [Insert Profitable Brand Here]
We're asking for the systems we actively maintain (often against our will and under threat of homelessness, starvation, and death I remind you) to do anything for us.
WHAT? But the profits!
I wish it were only the 1% saying bullshit like that, but sadly it seems the majority of voters are sold on the idea.
Yes, but once they realize that THEY themselves are the Welfare Queens that the GOP they will wake the fuck up.....
I'm kidding, I've ran into several "The Government needs to keep its hands off my Medicare!" and "Where was Uncle Sam when I was on Food Stamps!?!"
And they never take "The Government runs Medicare. This is like asking McDonalds to get their hands off of your Big Mac." and "He was the gentleman giving you the food stamps" for valid answers.
Relevant video example of your second quote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U
God that made my soul hurt
No doubt.
It's been 14 years, I don't think they're going to wake up unless we go door to door explaining how the GOP has been voting and the projected results of the legislatures.
Example: "The government spends more on medical because of privatized care than if they simply distributed funds directly. Insurance companies pay all of their employees and CEOs on profits taken from people, a government program would have no profits to speak of. The government is distributing funds to these companies on the poor's behalf, more funds than would just cover the care if we changed to a Single Payer system. This could actually lower your taxes if it went through, but it takes 60 senate votes and for over a decade one of the two major parties always votes against it in unison."
Right right right, but that's more than zero. That's tens of millions more cases than zero. We need to understand every action, or inaction, will have consequences to make the best possible decisions. Some users are advocating armed violence against the offices that would be allocating funding for healthcare, not even the CEOs but the actual workers at the company, it is each of our responsibilities to weigh the pros and cons and examine all of our options to solve these problems.
Theres no easy way. It's not as simple as pushing a button or pulling a trigger.
Oh come the fuck on you can’t seriously be going “I’m just saying it’s not zero!“ and acting like this is the discussion at hand.
I'm sure we'd be pretty sanguine about a school bus driver who gets 68% of the kids to school safely, too.
If the options were a bus with 32% fatality and no bus with 100% fatality, would you advocate we tear down the bus?
And we only have those two choices because of capitalist gaslighting. Given those two options, I would advocate deposing a few more insurance executives to improve the situation.
Alright, clearly you're lost.
This is a post about making threats of death and violence to people who work in an office building handling insurance claims, getting it to shut down for the day.
I don't think swingingthelamp is lost.
I think they just hit you with the polite version of the "coconut island" cohesive nature of capital.
I think capitalist realism is what makes many of us choose the lesser evil of 68% mortality.
Excellent, I'd not heard of the coconut island parable before! That's very apt.
I was thinking of the False Dilemma fallacy. The notion that the only two options are a school bus service with 32% casualty/loss rate, or no bus and a 100% casualty/loss rate, is capitalist gaslighting when we can plainly see the government bus company in other countries getting all the kids to school. For less cost, at that.
You kind of defeated yourself by admitting the 32% is the lesser evil that you still wouldnt choose because you associate it with a different political tribe.
You're literally advocating we harm ourselves as an alternative to "caPiTAlisM".
I'm not sure you understand that I don't subscribe to the same binary choices you do.
It's not an ideological tribe that dictates my decision. I understand that better options exist and I choose those.
You do, actually. We all do. You're either not a citizen of this nation and therefor you want others to face consequences, or you're beholden to the same consequences as us all. Even by saying you refuse to choose, you're picking one of the two. Just like 10 Million DNC voters stayed home last election, they're facing the consequences.
Ideally it should be 0% (this is too optomistic, but I am not one make that figure) people pay into an insurance system to distribute risk. If a company cant resolve the inflow/outflow problem (not even going to get into profits, for-profit insurance is unethical) then it needs to be managed by an organization that can. ~30 governments (USA not amongst them) that have solved this problem for their citizens and anyone requiring medical assistance within their borders.
Right right right all cool, but I was conversing with that other user who claimed nothing was getting approved.
Bro 1 in 3 claims being denied is fuckin insane are you drunk on boot
Especially when you consider that these claims are not being made by random people but by trained board certified physicians whose entire livelihood depends on them providing prompt and appropriate care for their patients.
I feel like even 16% being rejected is very high
Well, the claims are reviewed by physicians but they're often not in the specialization of the care provided so they can make mistaken judgements and a great way to appeal it is to ask the insurance company for proof that the physician who denied the claim does specialize in the type of care being reviewed.
Unfortunately most people don't know that, less than 1% of denied claims are appealed.
Love that
1 in 3 is bad
3 in 3 is worse
What is this comment supposed to bring to the discussion? Edit: bro is like im going to win this debate by having a very narrow defensible argument that 1 is smaller than 3
I am the voice of "Don't threaten to shoot up your local office building or post office."
Yeah you're right, we shouldn't have a system that requires people to go to extreme measures in order to get meaningful reforms.
Well good news, we don't have that system. You don't magically wish your favorite legislature into existence after 24 kills, this isn't a call of duty lobby with kill streak rewards.
Have it your way bud
My way is a ship that sailed in 2010, leaving us all behind.
This is an incredibly stupid hill to die on
If you think lying to promote terrorism is a better hill, idgaf what you think.
If you presume the other health funds are acting rationally, accepting legitimate claims, rejecting those that are not covered by the policy of the person claiming them, then for every illegitimate claim denied by the average fund United deny one illegitimate and one valid claim.
In what way is that not terrible?
I'm not sure who you're arguing against but it isn't me.
I'm not defending anything. I'm just pointing out an obvious lie.
Why do you think none of the claims being accepted is not terrible but 84% being accepted is terrible? Are you pro-debt and unnecessary death and sickness?
100 minus 36 is 64, not 84.
I never suggested all should be accepted. I made an assumption for my argument that the average health funds are acting fairly. I don't believe that, incidentally, since many are far below the average and I don't believe they are approving invalid claims
Right. My comment, which you were replying to was about the worst company.
Right, this entire thread I made, which you were replying to, as well as the post above it, was about the entire industry and every single person who works in it.