this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
1499 points (98.6% liked)

196

16359 readers
2370 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Tweet is from around February 2022; I’m not visiting that cesspool to find the exact date.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 103 points 6 days ago (10 children)

Americans pay more for healthcare than any other country, for worse results than any country with universal single-payer healthcare. Moving to the same model as Canada or the UK would mean paying less for healthcare, and getting better healthcare.

Which is obvious once you understand how private health insurance works.

Hold on, not all my money goes to healthcare in my for-profit healthcare system??

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The US has by far the most expensive healthcare in the world, and for all that expense, achieves outcomes comparable with the third world.

Negotiating with providers as a single payer massively shifts the dynamic by putting the negotiating power in the hands of the people representing patients, and allows a huge amount of bloat to be removed from the system - like the entire insurance industry.

Single payer will deliver huge savings, better healthcare, and better access. The people that lose are the grifters draining the system for profit.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Won't somone please think of the health insurance execs!

[–] shani66@ani.social 28 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Man, why are Republicans so fucking stupid? Even the greediest toplofty would benefit more from universal healthcare than they'd lose.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 23 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

The thing that really grinds my gears about neoliberal capitalism is that isn't even good at capitalism. It is just mathematical fact that healthy and happy workers make you more money, and are more than happy to work harder for luxuries (that, by the way, improve your consumerist economy) than stressing themselves into an early grave over necessities, all while breeding more workers for you to exploit.

That's not even getting into the kind of moronic system that rewards CEOs for selling off productive company assets and calling it record profits, bonus please!

[–] shani66@ani.social 7 points 5 days ago

I might not be a good lefty for saying it, but I've never been against capitalism at like a base level. I imagine it'd be perfectly fine in a species evolution didn't utterly fail, but example says we humans cannot have it and remain functional.

[–] voldage@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

I believe that it's much less about profits and much more about power. Being unbeliveably wealthy in a world where everyone have their every need satisfied is less favourable for a megalomaniac than being believeably wealthy in a world where everyone is desperate. People rarely desire expensive jewelery or other (relative) luxuries for their own satisfaction, usually it's used to signify wealth and show power. What use would those extremely rich psychopaths have for their money if there was no human black market to buy a child sex slave from? Where would they get their dose of praise and submission if no one desperately wished to change their dire living conditions and was willing to licktheir boots for that chance? I think capitalism was designed specifically for this purpose, and with class divide growing ever wider, it fulfills it excellently.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 47 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Funny how Reagan ran on fiscal responsibility, gutted social programs and then spent all that money on military crap and subsidies for industrialist pals. It's never been different. Even the tea-party was miserly about social programs but happy to give the military everything it wanted (but not to improve the DVA and things to improve the lives of soldiers were right out.)

And yet somehow who's going to pay for it is regarded as a valid argument even though these social programs would be a tiny fraction of what we spend on our toys for killing people.

[–] EdgeOfDistraction@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago

Reagan didn't just spend the money from social programs: he changed the US from the biggest creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation to fund the military.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 45 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Libertarians be like "But with free healthcare, I would pay for liver treatment for alcoholics, and lung treatment for cig smokers! No one will incentivized to live healthy lives!"

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 29 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They already do, though, that's what insurance is. They're just paying for the premium luxury version of liver treatment.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 9 points 6 days ago

American Libertarians would be okay with many of the contracts we consider illegal, like ejecting people with pre-existing conditions.

[–] naught101@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago

Yeah, well the rest of us will have to pay for their bear mauling injuries

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

I think I found a way to convince them. we can say that with free healthcare kids under 18 will be able to go to a hospital and ask for treatment b without their parents because they won't need money anyway and doctors would want to keep their medical history confidential.

if kids can make healthcare decisions without their parents getting involved, that would be a first step towards lowering the age of consent!

I made it up but if we make it sound convincing they'll be advocating for free healthcare in no time.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Unfortunately i think “Medical privacy” is going to scream “abortion” to your target audience.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 38 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You can also take a fairly selfish view and come to the same conclusion. Like, I don't want to see homeless encampments, or really sick and untreated people, or panhandlers, or (...) while I'm walking around in my city. I can solve this problem by 1) moving to a nice suburb, or 2) having my tax dollars go to fix a problem that affects me. 1) is off the table because I want to live in the city, and 2)


while it helps the greater good


also helps me directly. (2 can also be addressed in a draconian fashion, which is not what I'm advocating at all.)

I think one problem is looking at things as zero sum. It's not. If you are healthy and housed and fed then you're not


to be very crass


an eyesore, you're adding to the fabric of the city. I want street musicians who are playing for fun, not because they're trying to make enough to afford dinner.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 30 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This is something I just don't get how so many folks don't seem to get it. Social safety nets make just a better overall environment to live in. Most people work jobs interacting with other people and have all sorts of things outside of work interacting with people. Ideally they are clean, healthy, educated, and are happy in the sense they are not worried about their prospects for basic necessities like food and shelter.

[–] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 18 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There is some percentage of people that simple can not think in any other way than zero sum games. Every transaction, interaction, etc needs to have winners and losers. They can’t see that some spending is good because it helps people which in turn helps them. It is a completely alien world view that I also don’t understand. They are the foot soldiers for fascism.

[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 6 days ago

I was gonna joke that they must not have friends then, but that's actually a pretty common problem.

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 6 days ago (3 children)

if I'm paying for the creation of skeletons, I expect to receive some in the mail.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Gladaed 2 points 5 days ago

Homogenate maybe more accurate

[–] Banana_man@reddthat.com 7 points 6 days ago

this band is very based from what I have seen

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If it is Feb '22 then that's an extremely prescient tweet, as the Palestinian Genocide didn't start until Oct '23.

[–] unlawfulbooger@lemmy.blahaj.zone 32 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (5 children)

Remember: nothing happened before 7/10/2023

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›