• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Every hospital fee is a junk fee. We shouldn’t be paying for hospital visits except out of taxes.

  • Hathaway@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I could be wrong, but, that feels like a weak position to run on. I’m not sure I want the government worrying about the expected fee at the hotel I cannot afford to go to.

    Isn’t there a way to spend the money you’re going to spend on that to spend it on like food availability, or affordable housing, or education…?

    Idk. Seems like a waste of resources but, I suppose they probably have a massive team figuring out what the country is worried about. Just seems like a weird thing to underline, it feels like a back burner issue.

    • blackbelt352@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I kinda see where you’re coming from but junk fees are really something that affects everyone, especially those near the bottom of society. Stuff like cell phone fees inflating phone prices, online commerce fees making transactions more expensive, credit card/banking fees, overdraft fees a literal tax on being poor, convenience fees because they can, maintenance fees. It all adds up to tens of billions of dollars annually.

      • GingeyBook@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        What’s going to stop the companies from just rolling that convenience fee into the price of the service though?

        • blackbelt352@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Thats part of the point, It makes the upfront pricing more visible. Clear, easy to understand information means better purchasing decisions are made by consumers.

          It’s a lot harder to sell a $1500 phone than it is to sell a $1000 phone with $500 in extra fees tacked on at the time of purchase.

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s nothing wrong with that, because it’s the advertised price. It’s unethical to say that something costs $1 and then charge them $2.

      • Hathaway@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Okay, see, this is a much better list than “concert tickets, hotels, and cellphone bills” lmao. Now you can get me to care and see the merit.

        Not sure it still should be an underlined campaign promise, but, as stated, it’s bipartisan, everyone hates them. Then you add your reasoning in there too, and I could get behind it.

      • Hathaway@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I didn’t say it wasn’t. I said it’s a weird issue to underline and run a campaign on.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Small” inconveniences like this (among other things) are how asshole capitalists win. They nickle and dime us in ways that aren’t “worth” pushing back against. We tell ourselves “It’s just a little bit extra. Not worth pushing back just for that.”, but there are countless little bit extras and they drain us without resistance. And it’s not like individuals are going to be able to change any of that, so it’s entirely up to our governments to address those issues. Of course there are big things to work on too, but fixing some things doesn’t mean we can’t work on the big things too.

    • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I see you’ve bought into the Republican myth that the reason Americans have a shoddy social support infrastructure is due to budgetary tradeoffs. It’s not. It’s a failure of will of the American people to do what’s necessary to stop preventable innocent casualties.

      • Hathaway@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Care to elaborate? I probably have, I was raised in that environment, though, I wouldn’t call myself right leaning on most things.

    • Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How many resources do you think it takes to ban junk fees?

      Because it’s nowhere comparable to the cost of any of your alternatives

      • Hathaway@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well if it’s such an easy win, why not just do it? Why campaign on it. He’s already in office lol. I hate politics.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can’t afford housing or healthcare. Lets make changes to zoning laws first eh? “Junk Fees” are a problem but the fees don’t get to me cause I can’t afford the service in the first place.

    • Iteria@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m pretty sure zoning laws are outside of the Fed reach. They can carrot and stick via funding requirements, but mediated expansion has shown that states can be very petty if they don’t want to comply. I wouldn’t want the feds to set the tempo for zoning anyway. They just can’t be aware of every area’s needs. It’s not a one size fits all situation. I’ve seen housing go up fast and the result is just a shitshow because the infrastructure doesn’t keep up with the growth. I’ve seen dead cities where nothing wad built and only the people who got there first could afford a place to live, so effectively you had to leave town for everything because no retail workers could afford to live nearby. There’s a middle ground between the two and no way will the feds know how to rate limit how housing gets built anywhere. Housing to me is a local election problem because people don’t vote in local elections and then when the problem gets too bad, only nimbys cam live and vote there. Those places always collapse eventually (unless the population is very well off, see: SF), but when people get a chance to move back in they gotta remember to vote for local people who align their values.

      • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe… Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion… I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate.

  • willsenior@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s fine, but protecting abortion has proven to be a far greater motivator in the Democrats’ favor

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional Democrats are teaming up with the Biden administration and a progressive advocacy group to turn policy efforts to curb “ junk fees ” into a political rallying cry, betting that a small but potentially potent kitchen table issue will resonate with voters.

    President Joe Biden promised in this year’s State of the Union address to target unexpected fees tacked on to things like plane and concert tickets, hotel rooms, hospital and cellphone bills and housing transactions.

    Rep. Elissa Slotkin a swing-district Michigan Democrat who is now running for the Senate, is planning an event in a few weeks and said “the administration’s initiative to eliminate junk fees will put money back in peoples’ pockets.”

    But it may also help Biden bridge the gap between an economy that many metrics show is strong — with low unemployment rates and wages rising — and polling suggesting that many Americans don’t view that as a positive for Democrats.

    “Fighting surprise junk fees is super popular and bipartisan with the public because everyone hates these abusive extra costs,” said Adam Green, the Progressive Change Institute co-founder.

    “Dumpster fires polled better with the American people than Bidenomics, so extreme Democrats threw it in the garbage to talk about ‘junk fees’ because they know Biden’s economy is trash,” quipped Will Reinert, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, the GOP’s House campaign arm.


    I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • srwax@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Want to know what’s a winning issue? legalization of Marijuana. Need joe to get away from his old ways of thinking on this and to push forward this issue with overwhelming bipartisan support.

  • extant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Remember back when you could solve issues without it needing to be an election year? Me either.

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fun Fact. Every year is an election year. Also Fun Fact. He hasn’t been sitting on his ass for the last three years, he’s been pushing legislation all the time. How you or the news wants to phrase things doesn’t change that.

      • extant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        In those three years of pushing legislation why didn’t they tackle this “winning” issue? If I were elected I would assume I only have four years and do all I can in that time and not hold an issue hostage for re-election, but I’m not a politician.

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

          When you’re actually doing your job, you can’t change everything overnight. He has a ton on his plate, and hasn’t had a legislative mandate to pass whatever the party wants. They never had a liberal majority in the Senate, they have to deal with two senators who don’t agree with everything they want.

  • fosiacat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    the dnc is a party of fucking idiots if they think that’s what people are clambering for.

  • HurlingDurling@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    While it’s great they are taking this issue on, it’s on the bottom of my fucken totem pole when it comes to issues that need addressing. What about more action on climate change? No? Ok, then what about steps to stop institutional racism? No? Fine then! Let’s crack down on the housing crisis! Again no? The democrat lidership is so fucking disconnected to reality it’s no surprise we lost the house and congress.

    • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Current Top Political Issues in the United States for 2024

      1. Inflation

      2. Affordability of Health Care

      3. Bipartisonship in Government

      4. Drug Addiction

      5. Gun Violence

      6. Federal Budget Deficit

      7. State of Moral Values

      8. Immigration

      9. K-12 Education

      10. Climate Change

      11. Racism

      12. Infrastructure

      13. Domestic Terrorism

      14. International Terrorism

      15. Unemployment

      While you are focused on the tenth-ranked topic, the Biden Administration is focused on the first.

      Politicians are the servants of the people, you need to convince the people to get your issue higher up.

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If they’re going to include taxes and fees in the price of goods, won’t that raise their advertised price and therefore appear to increase inflation, driving away voters? I like this legislation but I don’t know if it’s a good idea to pass it?

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If they’re going to include taxes and fees in the price of goods, won’t that raise their advertised price and therefore appear to increase inflation, driving away voters?

      I’m sorry, but are Americans really that dumb? Everyone else in the developed world can handle the actual price being displayed.

  • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem with doing this as the incumbent is that if it’s broadly popular, it’ll just pass, and if it is only popular on your side of the aisle, it won’t help you much.

    The swing voters will say “yes it is a problem, why haven’t you fixed it?”

    The answer has to be the other party. Are Republicans against this? What is the argument against?