• ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think it’s considered center left based on US politics. Our Overton window has shifted pretty far. The Swiss have universal healthcare and strict gun control. That can’t be right by US standards.

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s true that it’s based on US standards, but it’s also worth pointing out that the rating itself is completely arbitrary.

        • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          I suggest reading the methodology carefully. Picking a number between 0 and 10 is hardly a robust methodology. Any two people could follow it and come to completely different answers.

            • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              The placement of the yellow dot is determined through a composite score derived from four distinct categories: Biased Wording/Headlines, Factual/ Sourcing, Story Choices, and Political Affiliation. Each category is rated on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0. indicating a lack of bias and 10 representing extreme bias. The average of these four scores is then plotted on the scale to indicate the source’s overall Left-Right bias.

              I wouldn’t call picking four numbers 'a whole lot more ’ personally. If you actually read some of the bias analysis it becomes more obvious how arbitrary it is.

              • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                The rubric is literally right below what you quoted

                The categories are as follows:

                1. Biased Wording/Headlines- Does the source use loaded words to convey emotion to sway the reader. Do headlines match the story?

                2. Factual/Sourcing- Does the source report factually and back up claims with well-sourced evidence.

                3. Story Choices: Does the source report news from both sides, or do they only publish one side.

                4. Political Affiliation: How strongly does the source endorse a particular political ideology? Who do the owners support or donate to?

                Just because it is a qualitative and not a quantitative assessment doesn’t mean it’s arbitrary.

                • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  Yes I agree, and just because there is a methodology doesn’t make the result not arbitrary. Can you explain what number four means? How do I assess it, what’s a 0, what’s a 5 and what’s a 10? How does number 2 relate to bias, isn’t that a factuality rating thing , why is it in the bias rubric? It’s a joke, each rating is totally arbitrary as there is no definition of what each one means beyond some vague description of the category. It’s essentially pick a number, feels based.

                  I have worked with qualitive rubrics before and this one is barely worthy of the name honestly. Two people could take this rubric away and come to completely opposite conclusions based on their own biases.

    • FundMECFSResearchOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      We may have “universal healthcare” in that everyone every legal resident following the law, the law saying you must purchase health insurance, is technically insured.

      But we don’t have public insurance, it’s run by private companies at exorbitant prices with crazy premiums. And since we have such a large insurance /phara industry here, they are in the pockets of the government. Hell, the big insurance and big pharma companies even own shares in our national bank!

        • FundMECFSResearchOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s like the US but if it was illegal to not have health insurance, so literally being poor is illegal.

          When someone says “universal healthcare” it sounds a lot better than that.

          • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Gross Geneva monthly minimum wage is CHF 4426 or $4,940 according to a quick Google. In the US it’s $1,330.

            Edit. Even the highest US local minimum wage of $17 an hour is $2,992 a month.

            • FundMECFSResearchOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Geneva is basically the only canton of 26 to have minimum wage. I’m on 8k per year for example.

              Anyways, this isn’t an “I have it worst olympics”. But Switzerland is far inferior to countries who genuinely have “universal healthcare” meaning everyone can have healthcare even if they have 0 money. Instead of having “universal healthcare” through a weird legal loophole that excludes poor people by criminalising them.

              • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                In Switzerland, patients pay up to 8% of their personal income towards the cost of a basic insurance plan. If their premiums work out to more than 8% of their income, the government provides a cash subsidy to cover the difference.

                https://www.internationalinsurance.com/health/systems/switzerland.php

                My point in this whole thing is that everyone in Switzerland has healthcare and that healthcare is subsidized to be more affordable than in the US. That would be a left wing program here.

                • FundMECFSResearchOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  No. Not everyone have it. And this is not true. Health insurance can cost over 20%.

                  I am not insured because I cannot afford it. Which means I am technically breaking the law.

                  Only left wing states like geneva, which also has that minimum wage, offer those generous subsidies.

                  I would not trust a website made for rich expats.

                  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    All of that is irrelevant to my point that your right wing government has policies that would be far left in the US