SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " overpaid " 17 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Sign in to save shuffle history.
Panthers' star signee named amongst NFL's most overpaid players
Is the Panthers' top signee in 2026 now one of the NFL's most overpaid players? One analyst thinks so . . .
Carolina Panthers' Jaelan Phillips Named NFL's Most Overpaid Edge-Rusher
The Carolina Panthers signed Jaelan Phillips to a massive four-year, $120 million contract.
The Vikings’ Most Overpaid Players in 2026
Every NFL team has players who don’t quite match the value of their contracts, and based on current depth chart […]
Pacers’ Pascal Siakam Receives Harsh Label in New NBA Study
With the NBA preseason approaching, a new salary analysis has identified which players provided the strongest and weakest returns relative to their contracts last season. Indiana Pacers forward Pascal Siakam claimed the study’s most unforgiving distinction.Casino Guru USA ranked him as the NBA’s most overpaid player after comparing 2026-27 cap charges with production from the […] The post Pacers’ Pascal Siakam Receives Harsh Label in New NBA Study appeared first on HEAVY.
Which Bucs player is considered he most overpaid?
Who did Bleacher Report designate as the Bucs most overpaid player?
Trump bucks and the politics of mailing checks
The checks started going out last week, nearly one million of them, and mostly to battleground states. With a return address for the U.S. Treasury and a letter enclosed signed by President Donald Trump, these one-time checks for $500 were ostensibly government rebates for Obamacare enrollees who overpaid. In the accompanying letter, however, Trump attacks his predecessor and talks about his record in office on an important issue he’s not polling well on, which makes it seem more like the most expensive political mailer in U.S. history. The average piece of direct mail costs between 30 cents and $3, according to Mail Processing Associates, a print, mail, and fulfillment company. At $500 a pop plus roughly 50 cents each to issue the paper check, the cost of Trump’s healthcare mailer sent to more than 950,000 enrollees comes in at more than $475 million. Trump’s midterm healthcare message “For years, the Biden Administration overcharged you to fund the operation of HealthCare dot gov,” Trump wrote in the letter. “That money belongs to hard-working Americans, not the Government, and now, I am returning it to you!” In the letter, Trump makes false and misleading claims about his administration’s record on healthcare costs, an issue Democrats have a 20 point advantage on over Republicans, according to a recent poll from KFF, a nonpartisan health policy think tank. Trump touts his administration’s TrumpRX program, which he claims is “delivering massive discounts.” However, new research from KFF found that of a selection of drugs available on the TrumpRX platform, just five were the lowest price, while 13 were the highest price. Trump also falsely claims in the letter that he’s fighting to lower healthcare costs. In reality, average monthly premium payment costs for enrollees rose 58% under Trump while marketplace sign-ups declined 5%, per KFF. Under Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, it’s estimated 10 million more Americans will be uninsured by 2034. You get a check and you get a check and you get a check Trump’s long promised cash outs to his fans, from his days as a casino operator and gameshow host to his presidency. During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the first Trump administration made the unprecedented move to put Trump’s name on checks that went out under the CARES Act (notably the $500 refund checks this time around don’t feature Trump’s name). Ever since, Trump’s been chasing that high. In his second term, Trump’s promised more stimulus that never arrived, like refund checks from DOGE cuts and tariffs, while he said at his party’s convention last month that he’d give out $5,000 checks to everyone if Republicans win in November. In reality, DOGE overstated its cost cutting and Trump’s government actually now spends more than former President Joe Biden’s, while Trump’s tariffs actually grew the trade deficit. His proposal for $5,000 checks would add about $1.2 trillion to the national debt. The problem is there’s no money to give. These $500 checks — plus $90 Medicare rebate checks also going out as well as $250 deposited this week in some Trump Accounts for kids courtesy Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell and his wife Susan — represent the closest Trump’s going to get to making good on his promise to deliver cash fast. And the checks seem especially targeted. Though the $500 checks went out to enrollees in one of 30 states that use the federal HealthCare dot gov marketplace, a Reuters review found 71% of the payments, or $339 million, went to enrollees in 13 states that have the most competitive elections for governor and U.S. Senate. Most Americans don’t buy it Could Trump bucks sway the election? An Economist-YouGov poll found 57% of U.S. adults doubt Trump will deliver on his promise for $5,000 checks, compared to 21% who do. “I’m waiting on my DOGE check and I’m still waiting on my tariff check,” one 2024 Trump voter who’s since turned on him told a recent focus group. “It felt like kind of trying to buy people’s votes, which honestly felt like in elementary when the class president was like, hey we’re going to take you to the water park if you vote for me. It’s like, I don’t think it works like that.” But for voters in swing states who got a check, it could still matter. One survey published in 2022 found receiving a physically personalized check in the mail during the pandemic was associated with a much greater self-reported likelihood of voting for Trump in 2020, and those gains mainly came from out partisans. The issue for Trump comes if these checks are mostly going to Obamacare enrollees whose premiums have gone up by more than just $500 since he took office and who view the money as something like a bribe before the election rather than an actual long-term solution to lowering household costs. Spending $500.50 per mailer would be absurd as a normal campaign expenditure, but since Trump’s checks and letter are a government rebate, his campaign and super PAC didn’t have to spend a dime and he got out his message regardless. If enough voters in key states are swayed by the one-time payment, it could prove to be the best $0 the Trump campaign spent. Subscribe [ ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/why-independent-candidates-are-making) [ Why independent candidates are making independence central to their brand ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/why-independent-candidates-are-making) Hunter Schwarz · Oct 6 [ Read full story ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/why-independent-candidates-are-making) [ ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/these-designers-and-grocery-nerds) [ These designers and grocery nerds will brand Mamdani’s NYC grocery stores ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/these-designers-and-grocery-nerds) Hunter Schwarz · Oct 2 [ Read full story ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/these-designers-and-grocery-nerds) Trump wants to turn his first-ever golf course into a government course for presidents
Eagles Get Harsh Warning on Jonathan Greenard Contract
CBS Sports' Garrett Podell included new Philadelphia Eagles edge rusher Jonathan Greenard on his list of overpaid NFL players. The post Eagles Get Harsh Warning on Jonathan Greenard Contract appeared first on HEAVY.
All-Pro defender named Dallas Cowboys' most overpaid player
It looked like sky was the limit for Dallas Cowboys cornerback DaRon Bland following the 2023 NFL season. In just his second season in the NFL, Bland led the league in interceptions and was named a Pro Bowler and First-team All-Pro. As a result, he was recently named Dallas’ most overpaid player by Brad Gagnon of Blecher Report.
Controversial star receiver named Philadelphia Eagles' most overpaid player
Earlier this month, star cornerback Cooper DeJean was named the Philadelphia Eagles’ most underpaid player by Brad Gagnon of Blecher Report. Gagnon recently released a list of every NFL teams’ most overpaid player, and for the Eagles, that distinction went to mercurial star wide receiver A.J. Brown. Brown has eclipsed the 1,000-yard mark in each of his four seasons in Philadelphia, but declining production combined with a huge contract and some distracting behavior has led Brown to being overpaid, at least in the eyes of Gagnon.
NBA Scout Calls Jalen Duren an Overpaid Role Player
An anonymous NBA scout had a blunt verdict on what Detroit just paid Jalen Duren. #Pistons
Maple Leafs Captain Auston Matthews Ripped As Overpaid
The Toronto Maple Leafs and former general manager Brad Treliving managed to get captain Auston Matthews to agree to a four-year, $53 million contract to remain with the club through the end of the 2027-28 NHL season.Right now, Matthews counts $13.25 million against the salary cap as one of the highest-paid players in the NHL. […] The post Maple Leafs Captain Auston Matthews Ripped As Overpaid appeared first on HEAVY.
The Streaming Bubble Keeps Popping
(Welcome to the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a newsletter on the entertainment industry and business strategy. I write a weekly Streaming Ratings Report and a bi-weekly strategy column, along with occasional deep dives into other topics, like today’s article. Please subscribe.) One of my rules is “never bet against PE [private equity]”. This isn’t to say that I agree with their methods or tactics or strategies or financial innovations (aka shenanigans). Just that in the long arc of financial history, they’ve tended to return very good returns to their shareholders. That said, their forays into entertainment have left me...skeptical. I’ve written before about PE’s production company/celebrity production company roll ups, and those haven’t really worked out. Some PE groups tried to “roll up” an industry that isn’t “roll-up-able” for lack of a better term—since the barrier to entry for starting a production company is very low—often paying top dollar for celebrity production companies at the height of streaming valuations. So yeah maybe we can bet against PE when they venture into filmed entertainment. I’ve also noted that studio lots seemed to be a bubble back in 2022. Sure enough… Yikes! That sure sounds like some private equity guys lost some money. The only caveat being that holding a lot of land in Los Angeles is always valuable. But that wasn’t the pitch and likely real estate investment companies overpaid for said land. I mean, Goldman Sachs had to repossess it after all. (Technically, I’m not sure these buyers were traditional private equity, but PE was buying LA studio lots earlier this decade.) All to say: I call out bubbles when I see them, and they often pop. Anywho, my most famous bubble call was the “streaming bubble”, specifically that the major streamers were making too many shows and films. And that it could all come crashing down. Notably, I made this call before the strikes of 2023, but those strikes potentially accelerated the popping. And now it has indeed popped. One of my most popular articles of last year made that exact case. A year later, it’s time to update that analysis. The bottom line is that the streaming contraction continues. Credit where credit is due, Luminate—an analytics company whose data I use weekly in my streaming ratings report—called this out in a recent report I saw highlighted in both Bloomberg and The Hollywood Reporter. But I’m adding my data to their look, including streaming films and kids TV shows. I’ll also provide some other data that all tells the same picture. Let’s dive in! Subscribe The Number of Streaming TV Shows, Films and Specials Is Declining AGAIN in 2026 Let’s get right to the data, starting with my dataset. Specifically, each week I track every “notable” title to come out on streaming. I try to grab every title on every major streamer, meaning if it’s a first run or original or exclusive, I track it. This helps me call out the “dogs not barking” and the misses/flops each week. So that will be our first series of charts, my weekly collection data. Let’s start with the raw TV show, film and special data, by week. Note: As the years have gone by, I have actually added more sources (going from just one source to five sources) to find new titles, meaning that this data collection is, likely, more accurate now than in the past. Which means my team and I are more likely to have undercounted titles in the past rather than today. I like to cut the data several different ways. Here’s that same look, by quarter, to more sharply show the trends: And here’s the data just looking at the first half of each year. That’s the same data, just cut three different ways with three different time periods. Note that films, TV shows, and specials are all down by 25%, 42% and 17%, respectively, from 2022. The good news is that the number of films and specials actually increased year-over-year from 2025 to 2026, but not enough to offset the 25% decline in TV shows. Now, I also look at kids shows, and here they are pulled out on their own: And here’s that by quarter: This really seems to be a notable area of pullback by the streamers. Kids shows are down 80% from 2022. This reflects some formerly Disney+ shows going to cable TV first, but also pullbacks from HBO Max, Prime Video and Netflix. I also categorize the TV shows by English language and non-English language, and that also reveals a lot of where the drop comes from: And here is by the half-year: In this look, the good news is the drop for English language shows seems to have stabilized in the last year. But the bad news is the long term decline from the 2022 peak. Other Data So I wasn’t the only person to notice this decline in the number of shows. I have a few other data sources for this, though most only go through the end of 2025. As I said, Luminate beat me to the punch, so let’s look at their data. We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out… What TV loss streaming didn’t make up for... How Netflix has changed their programming slate over time… Ten more images charting the decline of production... What type of films aren’t being made anymore... The good news (for movie theaters)… And more... ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support.
UFC Freedom 250 Fails to Knock Out The Ratings
(Welcome to my weekly streaming ratings report, the single best guide to what’s popular in streaming TV and what isn’t. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. If you were forwarded this email, please subscribe to get these insights each week.) If UFC fans wanted one image to say, “Hey, Paramount+ is crushing it with their UFC rights deal,” I could provide that image. Here it is: (Reminder: this is my creation of the Nielsen Top 30, since Nielsen doesn’t combine the lists or include sports. I take all three lists and combine them. Some streaming TV shows probably have higher ratings than many of the films on this list.) Look at that! UFC Freedom 250 is number one! It topped the Nielsen “Top 30” list for shows and films that made the top ten the week of 15-June. So if you’re a UFC fan or supporter of Paramount+, that’s the good news for you this week. This program topped the ratings charts for one week. Everything else is bad news, or at least a huge caveat to that story, which I’ll explain today in the first part of this week’s Streaming Ratings Report—for the weeks of 8-June and 15-June—which is a double issue since I’ve been writing on a bunch of topics recently. UFC Freedom 250 is one of the biggest streaming events of the year, and super relevant to Paramount+’s strategy, so it merited its own article. Let’s dive in! (Reminder: The streaming ratings report focuses on the U.S. market and compiles data from Nielsen’s weekly top ten viewership ranks, Luminate’s Top Ten Data, JustWatch and Reelgood interest data, Samba TV household viewership, company datecdotes, Netflix hours viewed data, Google Trends, and IMDb to determine the most popular content. While most data points are current, Nielsen’s data covers the weeks of June 8th to June 21st 2026. You can find a link to my terminology here.) Subscribe Check Out My Interview on UFC 250 at MMA Draw After you read this article, if you want even more thoughts on UFC and Paramount-Skydance/Paramount+, I did a written interview with MMA Draw. They asked me to answer some questions about UFC Freedom 250, and I was happy to chat with them. Find it here: [ The MMA Draw Newsletter Did Paramount really overpay for the UFC? What the data tells us so far If you know the history of American television, you also know that combat sports is often a leading indicator of the future… Read more a day ago · 10 likes · 1 comment · Nate Wilcox and Zach Arnold ](https://www.themmadraw.com/p/did-paramount-really-overpay-for?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web) I never thought I’d need a combat sports newsletter in my life, but the good folks at MMA Draw publish an excellent one on UFC, MMA, pro wrestling, boxing and more, analyzing both the sports themselves and the politics, economics and antitrust issues that impact them. Check the article and their newsletter out! Paramount+ Has Its Best Sporting Event of All Time…But Was It Worth It? Before we look at the UFC Freedom 250 data in particular, let’s talk about what we can’t say. Namely, let’s start with the lack of comparisons. First off, I’d love to put a chart out comparing this fight to past UFC fights on Paramount+…but we don’t have the data. This is the first time we’ve gotten Nielsen data about a Paramount+ UFC fight. As far as I can tell, Paramount provided data for the first fight, but it was a proprietary datecdote (saying it had “an average minute audience” of 5 million “views”) and then, for two fights, we got the linear viewership numbers when they aired on CBS, but no streaming data. Everything else was crickets. We also can’t compare this fight to other fights/combat sports on streaming, in particular the MMA and boxing, because Netflix also didn’t use Nielsen to track those events, opting for TVision and VideoAmp, respectively. (This isn’t Paramount’s fault, but does still suck.) We also can’t compare to UFC’s fights that used to be on ESPN+, since we don’t have any data for that, plus Disney+ didn’t have marquee fights. The comparisons would not be apples-to-apples. Can we compare to past Pay-Per-View fights? Absolutely not. The comparisons would absolutely NOT be apples-to-apples. That didn’t stop Paramount+, though, who bragged that their UFC events have reached drastically more people than past PPV fights. Duh. Sorry, but I gotta make this point again. A basic tenet of economics is that the cheaper something becomes, the more people consume or buy it. That’s Econ 101. (Sometimes pundits call things “Econ 101” that are actually like Econ 210 or even PhD-level economics, but no, this is really like first or second class basic economics.) Yet I still see one analytics firm consistently say that more people watch films on streaming than PVOD proves streaming which means that the streaming window is more valuable than the PVOD window. No, it’s not! Same thing here. Pay-Per-View events back in the day could be really, really, really expensive! So whole groups of people pitched in to buy them. That increased the perceived value of, say, the Mike Tyson fight. Or a UFC numbered event. So yes, the fact that Paramount+ makes numbered UFC fights essentially “free” if you’re already a Paramount+ member means consumption will go up. Obviously. Same for Netflix and their boxing matches. They’re talking about fights that used to cost consumers, in some cases, $50 in 1996…which is over $100 in today’s dollars. Over 1.6 million people paid that to watch the Tyson-Holyfield fight! Again, streaming is essentially “free”. Or $10 to $20, depending on what streamer we’re talking about and what tier you’re on. No wonder more people are “watching”. (Plus, Nielsen’s out-of-home viewing also helps these numbers.) UFC Freedom 250 Did Well…But I Have A Lot of Worries So what can we compare the fights to? Well, the good news is Nielsen put out that the fight averaged 7.0 million viewers for UFC Freedom 250, which is a solid number for a fight. We also know the length, at roughly 4 and a half hours. (I saw different run times, but this seems to be the consensus considering it started at 8 pm, had a delay and then finished after midnight on the East Coast. If you assume a shorter run time, then yes, the total hours viewed would go down.) That means I have the two numbers needed to add this to my Nielsen database. And then…I can compare this viewership to the NFL: And, uh, not great. But also within striking distance, mainly because the runtime for this event was so long. I’d also add that this event had viewership equal to a regular season NFL game on streaming, but if anything, it was more comparable to an NFL playoff or Super Bowl-esque event. And you can compare viewership to the top football games on broadcast, cable and streaming, and it’s not impressive at all: We can also compare it to other sports that week, including the NBA Finals and start of the World Cup: Again, not great. The NBA generated roughly four times as many average viewers each game for its NBA Finals. The World Cup has similarly big numbers. Also, that’s just a tiny fraction of the 25 most watched sporting events each week. The NBA, NHL and FIFA World Cup had many, many more games racking up hours. We could also compare this to other streaming programs to get an idea of “is this a good investment?” and here is how it ranks compared to other top Paramount+ programs: The worry here? Well, unlike scripted programming, which has rewatchability, older fights/sporting events have very little library value. Very, very few people are rewatching these fights, especially years from now. Paramount has also released datecdotes bragging about their subscriber numbers. Earlier this year, they claimed that the first UFC fight on Paramount+ brought in 1 million subscribers. Then, in their quarterly earnings report, they only ended up with 700K subs. Not great! They claimed they dropped lower-value international subscribers, but that’s why I tend to discount subscriber additions when they’re leaked to the press.1 I expect we may see a bump again for UFC Freedom 250, but I’d caution using subscriber growth so soon after these events to judge the success, since new subs with high churn (see Peacock) aren’t great either. Also, analysts often want to attribute all subscriber growth to their favorite/pet show, and that just doesn’t make sense. The biggest caveat for UFC Freedom 250 and Paramount’s very first UFC marquee event is that these could be high watermarks for the sport. UFC Freedom 250 had an incredible amount of earned media coverage compared to most UFC fights. I mean, it had wall-to-wall national news coverage in the lead up to the event. (The first fight also had a lot of promotion from Paramount since it was first.) Other fights could reach this bar—say the Conor McGregor return to the Octagon—but they’ll be fewer and far between. Was This Deal Worth It? All to ask: is this Paramount deal worth it? In this case, I think the UFC Freedom 250 numbers are more distracting than helpful. This fight did well and compares well to other top sporting events. But we know that the first marquee event was at least a third smaller, if Paramount’s own data is to be believed. And it’s likely the other fights are much, much, much smaller. And then you get to the paycheck that Paramount-Skydance paid. FIFA’s World Cup cost about the same for Fox, but clearly generated multiples more total viewership. (Though it’s only every four years.) The NBA is much more expensive, but until the playoffs, they likely didn’t pay for itself. Even still, Disney, NBCUniversal and Amazon Prime Video likely overpaid. So, in that context, the NBA may be an overpay that makes the UFC look not so bad. But two overpays don’t make an underpay, to paraphrase the old cliché about wrongs and rights. And looking at UFC Freedom 250 as the likely ceiling of MMA on Paramount+, Paramount-Skydance likely paid too much. Share 1 I would love regular reports on subscriber additions by programs, but as is, it’s mostly leaked or rumored in haphazard ways.
Elevance pays CMS $342M to assuage concerns of noncompliance and overbilling
The Medicare Advantage insurer said the payout is equal to what a CMS audit stated was the total amount the company was overpaid for patient care services. Despite receiving the cash, the agency has yet to officially withdraw its enforcement action, as the two parties are still negotiating.
Overpaid Executive Tax fight divisive, costly
Billionaires spend to battle labor's ballot measure.
The U.S. Healthcare System is Already Mostly Socialized
Now that Abdul El-Sayed is the Democratic nominee for Michigan’s open Senate seat, the outcome of this crucial race will depend mainly on two things: Whether Republicans succeed in demonizing El-Sayed because he’s brown and a Muslim, and whether they succeed in demonizing him as a left-wing radical. I will defer for the now the question of whether bigotry will be effective this year, although I will address it another day. What I want to address instead is El-Sayed’s signature issue — healthcare. Yes, El-Sayed advocates Medicare for All, a position the usual suspects denounce as “socialism.” I will get to the politics of his stance soon. Today, however, I want to talk about the substance. We should be clear that El-Sayed doesn’t even call himself a socialist. On the contrary, he explicitly disavows the label, saying “I’m a capitalist who just knows about capitalism”. In fact, as I explained in a previous post, the policies that El-Sayed advocates qualify him as a social democrat, not a socialist. Still, El-Sayed advocates a system under which the government would pay almost all medical expenses. Isn’t that socialism? Well, if that is the criterion then much of U.S. healthcare is already socialist. In fact, the government’s role is so large that U.S. healthcare is better described as partially privatized socialism than as anything resembling a free market. Let’s start with the raw numbers on health insurance, which pays the bulk of Americans’ medical expenses. Americans receive health insurance either from private companies or from public programs, overwhelmingly Medicare and Medicaid. Here’s what the breakdown of coverage and spending between private and public looked like in 2024: While a majority of Americans with health insurance get it from private companies, well over 100 million of us are covered by government programs instead. And these government programs pay more total dollars for medical bills than the private insurers do. Why do government programs that cover a minority of the population account for a majority of health insurers’ outlays? Mainly because Medicare covers seniors, and we’re expensive. Also, while Medicaid covers many younger Americans, disabled and elderly beneficiaries account for most of its spending. Even by the raw numbers, then, U.S. health insurance looks as much public as private. But that understates the government’s role: Private health insurance in the U.S. is both highly regulated and heavily subsidized. This is obviously true for the insurance coverage purchased by tens of millions of Americans through the exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act. But employment-based health insurance, which covers 161 million Americans, is far more of a government creation than most people realize. For employment-based insurance exists largely because of huge implicit government subsidies that come with major strings attached. Here’s how that works. If your employer pays you $10,000, that’s taxable income. But if your employer pays $10,000 toward a company health insurance plan that meets certain criteria, it isn’t taxable. That’s a huge effective subsidy, running at more than $300 billion a year. Take that subsidy into account, along with the more than $100 billion per year spent subsidizing policies purchased under the ACA, as well as the outlays on Medicare and Medicaid, and net effect is that the government pays for more than two-thirds of Americans’ health insurance. Granted, there are strings attached. Roughly speaking, employment-based health plans can’t discriminate based on medical history — that is, they can’t deny coverage to employees with pre-existing conditions — and they also can’t offer the plans only to highly compensated employees — a health plan that is only for the C-suite is considered taxable income. So given the restrictions of the federal tax code, employer-based health insurance is a lot like Obamacare, which also prohibits discrimination based on medical history and provides subsidies to make insurance affordable to lower-paid workers. The fact is that virtually all of private healthcare insurance is already well under some form of government control through regulation and tax subsidies. How should we think about this system? First of all, is Medicare socialist? Don’t tell anyone, but the way Medicare operates — it covers every senior’s medical expenses, whatever they turn out to be, while being funded by taxes that depend on one’s income — could be summarized by the old Marxist slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” And back in 1961, when Ronald Reagan was the face of a last-ditch effort by the American Medical Association to block the creation of Medicare, he denounced Medicare as “socialized medicine” and warned that it would destroy our freedom. In reality, American freedom survived until Jan. 20, 2025, while Medicare is immensely popular, with an 82 percent favorable rating in the most recent KFF survey. Medicaid, government health insurance for lower-income Americans, comes in at 73 percent. This is in sharp contrast to public views about private insurers, who are widely disliked if not hated and accused of denying essential care. Furthermore, if Medicare is socialism, then the whole U.S. health insurance system, with the government paying most of the bills and placing conditions on private insurers, is almost equally socialist. If you insist on calling any program the government pays for and regulates socialist, then U.S. healthcare would best be described as a partially privatized form of socialism. And one must ask, what is the point of the part that is privatized? Do private insurers add anything positive? Or are they simply parasites, skimming off money that could have been paying for care? The case for viewing insurers as parasites is strong. Many Medicare benefits are now delivered via Medicare Advantage, that is, plans paid for by the government but run through insurance companies. MedPAC, an independent advisory commission, estimates that last year Medicare Advantage plans were overpaid by $84 billion, thanks to practices such as “upcoding,” in which patients’ health problems are overstated to get larger sums from Medicare. Assessing the waste from employer-based insurance is harder, but most evidence suggests that private insurers have substantially higher administrative costs than Medicare does. Furthermore, the complexity of private insurance, with multiple payers all trying to deny care when they can, is a huge burden both on providers — doctors, nurses, and hospitals — and on patients. What do private insurers offer to compensate for these costs? One must go through intellectual contortions to avoid the conclusion that they are, in fact, parasites. Which brings me back to El-Sayed. In supporting Medicare for All, he’s basically calling for an end to the partial, parasitic privatization of a healthcare system that is already hugely dependent on public funding. When one looks at it that way, it’s not at all a radical proposal. Admittedly, the political lift requires overcoming the opposition to higher taxes to pay for Medicare for All. Political realism rather than economics was the reason I and many other progressives supported Obamacare, with all its complexities, rather than demanding an immediate move to Medicare for All. But the political calculus may very well have shifted since the 2000s, as Americans are fed up with a system of unaffordable premiums, rampant claim denials, and byzantine claim administration. Moreover, funding healthcare insurance through taxation would allow for a much more progressive distribution of the cost. That is, compared to the present system, middle-income households would pay less as high-income households would pay more. And the U.S. would stop wasting large sums on pointless administrative costs. So let’s be clear: El-Sayed’s healthcare platform is perfectly reasonable on the merits of cost, fairness and health efficacy. And with private insurers never more hated, while millions of Americans are losing their health insurance, 2026 may be its time. MUSICAL CODA
Is 76ers Star Joel Embiid the NBA’s Most Overpaid Player?
Joel Embiid's lack of time on the floor plays a major role in this conversation, but there may be a silver lining in all of this.