Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, July 24, 2026

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" does not apply to nearly one in four US workers (24%) who suffer from "job lock." Approximately 23m Americans stay unhappily in their current job, even though they want to leave, because they are afraid of losing their health insurance.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

About 24% of U.S. employees stay in unwanted jobs just for health insurance, a report out Wednesday finds. Up significantly since 2021, the uptick in "job lock" is a concerning sign for the U.S. economy. n.pr/4gQIY5E

[image or embed]

-- NPR (@npr.org) 12:32 AM · Jul 22, 2026

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Job lock is on the rise amid broader healthcare affordability challenges. About half of Americans report difficulty consistently paying for needed medical care or prescriptions, and 51% say they are worried about their ability to afford healthcare over the next 12 months, the highest level in five years. Because of the Republican Party "BBB" and expensive health insurance premiums, many Americans are cutting back on basic necessities or opting out of the ACA (Obamacare) altogether.
But some lucky Americans receive excellent healthcare with little or no cost to them, so their pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness in America is going along just fine, thanks for asking.


#1 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-07-23 02:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

imo, it is not "yet another reason."

There is one reason, and only one reason, why the US needs universal health care.

What is that singular reason?

Simple: It helps US citizens to stay healthy, happy and productive.

What other reason is needed?


#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-07-23 03:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

We can't afford it after giving billionaires massive handouts, a billion dollar ballroom, hundreds of millions for Bribe Force One, $38 billion on Iran Trumpstein files distraction, $180 billion for ICE to murder Americans, tens of millions for a reflecting pool liner, and so on and so on and so on.

It's not that the US can't afford it.

It's that the GOP doesn't care if you get sick, exhaust your life savings, lose your house and die.

#3 | Posted by Nixon at 2026-07-23 08:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

'Always Enough Money for War' - James Talarico Speech (a la Corky's OP)

#4 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-07-23 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Most Americans are one hospital visit away from bankruptcy.

Best healthcare system in the world is a lie we're fed by the insurance industry.

#5 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-07-23 03:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yes indeed, Clownshack, and a method to perpetuate medieval serfdom -- feudalism -- on Americans in the US.

"But I must the till the land, milk the cows, and barrow the goods for Milord or else where would I go?"

Decades ago I knew someone who was quickly hired because she was pregnant out of wedlock and the boss knew her.

She was competent, but then "IK" went out on maternity leave so we picked up her workload anyway.

That's no way to run an organization, but we are channelized into this survival mode approach to life, like people in the former USSR and today's Russia.

#6 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-07-23 03:22 PM | Reply

It's that the GOP doesn't care if you get sick, exhaust your life savings, lose your house and die.

#3 | POSTED BY NIXON

You are being too kind to them. It's worse.

They actually WANT half of America to suffer, get sick, exhaust their life savings, lose everything and hopefully die. So that they cannot resist Trumpy's evil plans any longer. Apparently.

Exhibit A:

"We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want to put them in trauma."

-Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and key architect of Project 2025

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-07-24 01:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Prior to 1973 health insurance was non-profit.

#8 | Posted by visitor_ at 2026-07-25 09:22 AM | Reply

Re 8

Another day .. another lie.

#9 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-07-25 10:53 AM | Reply

While many major health insurers (like early Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans) operated as nonprofits, the industry itself was not exclusively nonprofit.

For-profit commercial health insurance companies existed and competed in the market well before 1973.

Nixon definitely did not help the situation or move towards a universal healthcare system. He did the opposite of what was needed for the health of America.

As republicans tend to do.

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-07-25 11:03 AM | Reply

Prior to 1973 health insurance was non-profit.
#8 | Posted by visitor_

That's not correct.
But what did happen in 1973 is Nixon signed the law that allowed HMOs to exist.
Managed Care plans is what was "innovated" in 1973,
Fee For Service has been around forever.
Neither of them are specifically non-profit.

You can hear Nixon's aides telling Nixon why he should sign this law on the Watergate tapes.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-07-25 11:06 AM | Reply

And once upon a time in America, we had free hospitals: drudge.com

#12 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-07-25 11:36 AM | Reply

stanmed.stanford.edu

#13 | Posted by visitor_ at 2026-07-25 11:57 AM | Reply

Need to bust up the medical organizations.

You can't get a second opinion if the doctors all work for the same entity as well as the pharmacies.

#14 | Posted by Petrous at 2026-07-25 12:01 PM | Reply

Re 13

It's a good article but not supportive of your lie.

It's a lie because you tried to indicate all insurance before 1973 was non profit. Not ALL was and not all was based in empathy for others but many times on the profits of the employer.

A better and more comprehensive history of health care in America:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

#15 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-07-25 12:25 PM | Reply

Re 15

Better catch it while you can before Trumpy or his acolytes notice and remove the website.

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-07-25 12:32 PM | Reply

Need to bust up the medical organizations.

Ironically the medical organizations gained strength under Obamacare.
I could never understand why they "outlawed" physician run care facilities.
I expect any major legislation to never do what it proposes. Too many vested interests, but it won't keep the proponents from lying about its ability to create utopia.


Fee For Service has been around forever.

LOL You have no idea what non-profit means do you? Do you think non-profits paying CEOs $500,000 a year don't charge?

Blue Cross and Kaiser Permanente started as non-profits. But you still paid for your care, they just didn't have any shareholders.


But what did happen in 1973 is Nixon signed the law that allowed HMOs to exist.
Managed Care plans is what was "innovated" in 1973,

Not only allow, but it allowed the government to give grants to organizations, and changed the employer benefits. Again government interference.
The funny thing just like Obamacare it was sold to provide more competition ... which neither one has done.

Boomers strike again!

#17 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-07-25 12:34 PM | Reply

Prior to 1973 health insurance was mostly non-profit. Is that better -------?

#18 | Posted by visitor_ at 2026-07-25 12:35 PM | Reply

Marcus Welby retired and Steven Kiley sold the practice to Kaiser and became an employee at his old practice.

#19 | Posted by visitor_ at 2026-07-25 12:38 PM | Reply

Marine

Dedicated volunteers have been archiving all sorts of things because of the Fourth Reich.

6 Jan convictions once found in justice.gov are gone, but archived overseas.

Canadian and British researchers were archiving USG medical material.

#20 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-07-25 12:42 PM | Reply

Prior to 1973 health insurance was mostly non-profit. Is that better -------?

#18 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Well, fart blossom, it really depends on how far back you go but it still doesn't cover it

Most "health insurance" was not very comprehensive and did not even cover medical expenses but was for income protection.

Employer based insurance was mostly for the protection of the company profits.

Employment-related medical programs occasionally covered not only work-related injuries but also general medical care for workers, their families, and even the larger community (Somers and Somers, 1961; Munts, 1967; Brandes, 1976). In the early part of this century, company medical services could be one component of "welfare capitalism," a range of housing, education, social assistance, and other programs intended to socialize workers, bind them to their employer, and discourage unions. Instead of or in addition to providing company hospitals and doctors, some employers assisted employee mutual benefit associations with financial and clerical aid. Most general accounts of these associations do not make clear whether they protected against medical care expenses, and to what extent, or simply against loss of income due to injury or illness. In any case, although a few companies, such as Eastman Kodak, made large contributions to these employee programs, a 1916 Public Health Service survey found only one company of 425 that fully funded such a program, and most assistance was quite limited (Munts, 1967; Brandes, 1976).

For the most part, physician organizations opposed company-provided medical care as a threat to their autonomy and income. During the early part of this century, this opposition discouraged many companies from expanding their involvement in medical care. For example, after the company doctor at Sears, Roebuck resigned because the county medical society refused him membership, his successor persuaded the company to stop providing services to workers' families at reduced prices and to provide only periodic examinations and other limited care to employees (Starr, 1982).

Workers had different concerns (Brandes, 1976). Company doctors were often seen as serving the company before the patient, for example, in reporting illnesses discovered during physical examinations and in making judgments about whether injuries were work-related and thus required some compensation to the employee. Also, many workers preferred to choose their own physician. As a consequence of these and other concerns, unions often pressed for cash benefits instead of company medical services (Starr, 1982).

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-07-25 01:01 PM | Reply

Sorry. Too many words.

Bottom line. Many if not most employer based insurance was for the benefit of the employer. Not the employee.

#22 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-07-25 01:02 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort