Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I vote to increase taxes every time, so very recently. Sure it would be in my best interest to hoard my money, but I care more about everyone having access to healthcare and social services, because I’m not a selfish person. Conservative policies are inherently selfish.
You cite gun violence, but right-wing politicians have absolutely no policies that aim to reduce gun violence. They oppose all forms of government social services and any gun control. When comparing violence between red and blue states/cities, per capita, red areas commit more violent crimes.
I think this is honestly a conservative misconception. i very recently considered voting for our Maori party here in the latest elections, all that stopped me was some recent controversy that called the party leader's integrity into question. but still, I would relish the country's minorities receiving greater representation and privilege. as a straight white cis male, I have plenty enough privilege already, even if I don't consider my own life especially easy.
I think you replied to the wrong comment :)
no, I intended to reply to you, but perhaps I should have quoted vector in my response. i was wanting to expand on your answer, to add that it's a misconception of conservatives that people vote for their own interests.
I guess perhaps it could have worked better as a direct reply to vector.
Please tell me that's a typo lol
The only way I can see to fix the healthcare costs is regulation, which conservatives vote against every time.
Enforcement of current laws is definitely an issue. Cops refuse to enforce policies they don’t like, and they send domestic abusers right back to their families to continue abusing. I am having a hard time finding statistics for the catch and release of violent criminals, do you have one that shows they comprise a significant or majority portion of violent crime? I see a lot of assumptions from conservatives that illegal immigrants cause the majority of the violent crime in the US, but I never see the data to back it up, so it just comes across as racist.
First of all, what is our current healthcare system doing if not lining the pockets of big pharma? They get to charge whatever they want for lifesaving treatments because there's no regulations on it, and everyone is expected to just pay out the ass for insurance to maybe have it cover a portion of the bill.
More importantly though, universal healthcare is CHEAPER than our current healthcare system, so that covers getting it "under control"*. There have been countless studies showing how switching to a single-payer system would reduce costs, while still guaranteeing every citizen healthcare.
* - (Why do we need to get it under control, though? Slash a $100B off the egregiously bloated as fuck military budget and healthcare has all the funding it needs)
"Slash a 100$ billion off ... military budget and healthcare has all the funding it needs."
Pretty misleading. That 100 billion isn't enough, you'd have to raise taxes as well.
The actual cost is on the order of 3 trillion or higher per year. Larger than the entire US federal budget.
If you simply had looked at the cost of Medicare you would have seen how preposterous the 100 billion dollar estimate is. Medicare is not completely free for users and only covers around 18 percent of the population, has expenditures in excess of 700 billion.
If what you were saying is true, how does every developed nation on Earth, except for the US, afford it?
Not to mention that universal healthcare is cheaper than the US model.
Because they have higher tax rates. Some people argue that the tax rates are actually equivalent to the US, but that only factors in income tax and ignores VAT (which the US doesn't have at a federal level).
The claim was that a mere 100 billion would pay for it, proving that claim false does not affect the fact that other countries have it.
"The universal healthcare model is cheaper than the US model"
By about 10 percent. The problem with a lot of analysis of Medicare for all plans is that they assume that it would be able to run at the same cost ratio as it does now. But Medicare currently does not pay for the full cost of services, it's essentially subsidised by the private insurers. Replacing private insurance would require increasing the Medicare payout percentage or else hospitals would lose money, and have to cut services.
Additionally if you actually poll the public, they do not want to pay the additional taxes to fund this universal healthcare. The US is in a weird position were a chunk of the population has government insurance, but the bulk is pushed onto employers and that's basically the best place to put it if you want to minimise the burden on the public.
But US people pay this too. Except they pay it to for-profit insurance companies, who are significantly less efficient than a single, universal, non-profit fund.
And they pay more. A lot more. To have a for-profit company sit between them and their doctors, practicing medicine without a licence, telling the doctors what care the patient is and is not allowed to receive.
And all that additional complexity also costs money! Healthcare professionals waste time trying to get procedures paid for and negotiating with insurance companies about the needs of their patients.
Like. It's just flat out cheaper to pay the additional taxes rather than the insurance company.
And it's just less useful and less pleasant for everyone involved. People from countries with universal healthcare don't know what "preauthorisation", "deductables", and "copays" are. If they get sick or hurt, they just go to the doctor.
Firstly, I don't actually believe you. But secondly, if that is actually true, that is so stupid as to make me wonder if US people are lobotomised at birth.
You can literally save money, and get a much more pleasant healthcare experience, and all you have to do is allow poor people to have coverage too. And the US says that they would rather fund an insurance company CEO's yacht than do that.
Did you miss the part where nearly all insurance people have is subsidised by either the government or their employer? People don't actually pay these costs there employer does, usually as an employment incentive.
"But people in the US pay it too"
Insurance is optional in the US. So no they don't necessarily pay it, infact it's not uncommon to skip coverage to save some money. This would not be an option under a taxation system. And yet again, it's primarily employer-subdised.
"People from countries with universal healthcare ....,"
There are many different types of universal healthcare, the fact that you are making such a broad statement shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Some countries implement it by forcing people to buy private insurance.
"All you have to do is allow poor people to have coverage too"
Okay, so you actually are too stupid to have this conversation. Lookup what Medicaid is, and additionally realise that needs-based programs are by definition not universal. In fact this is one of the biggest criticisms of Medicare for all and UBI, they involve giving money to a large percentage of the population that don't need it. In fact universal systems literally tax the poor to pay the rich, it's the epitome of a regressive policy.
The current US system is inefficient sure, it's not as inefficient as widely claimed and arguing that universalising it makes it cheaper for the user is simply false.
Tying your ability to access healthcare to a private employer who can remove that access on a whim is utterly insane.
People do not voluntarily go without health coverage. They go without when they cannot afford it. Which is a problem that doesn't exist in countries with universal coverage.
And those people without coverage when suffer enormous financial burdens if they fall sick or get hurt.
Healthcare isn't optional in life. It's a matter for time before everyone needs something.
Oh shut the hell up.
I've lived in countries with various models, some with private coverage and some without. Some free at point of use, some only subsidised.
The reason I didn't enumerate every option is because it's irrelevant to the point I'm making.
I can't believe I actually have to explain this, but it's clear you need someone to walk you through this very basic concept:
The rich pay higher taxes. So giving them 1000 dollars a month in UBI or healthcare is immediately recovered by the higher taxes. This isn't difficult.
And making the rich use the same systems as the everyone else means that the rich are incentivised to improve the quality of the services that everyone uses.
That might be the single stupidest thing I've ever read. Congratulations.
It is literally empirical fact. Facts don't care about your feelings.
"is utterly insane" Asserting an opinion as objective fact. You have completely failed to argue that this is true. Also not only does an employer terminating coverage violate COBRA, in many cases it is also a violation of your employment contract.
"The reason I didn't enunerate every option" You were never asked to enumerate every option, you were asked to not lie about how people don't know what copays and deductibles are. That was the lie you made.
"The rich pay higher taxes... it's immediately recovered".
No it's not. Unless you literally tax 100 percent of all money above a certain limit, the government will not get it back, only maybe 40 percent. You just threw away 60 percent of the funds.
"And making the rich use the same systems"
So what do rich people in countries with universal healthcare do? They use privatised services, just like in the US. So what incentive do these all powerful rich people have to improve the universal healthcare system that they don't even use?
It's unfortunate that you are selectively gullible to believe all the propaganda that brain-dead losers like Andrew Yang generate, but not actual factually-based critique.
"It's literally an empirical fact" And an insufficient one. The fact that the US system is inefficient, does not mean that the end user pays more than they would in taxation. Private insurance is cheaper than Medicare for many people. I personally know dozens of low-income people who opt for private insurance.
"Facts don't care about your feelings"
I hate Ben Shapiro, I think he has vacuous worthless opinions, the difference is that Ben Shapiro isn't the one lying to people on this post right now.