this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2024
1017 points (92.7% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

27200 readers
3591 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/34117495

[OC]

Original still created by @gedogfx (IG). Title source: "Inkl"

Edit: I'm not on any other social media platforms, so feel free to share this elsewhere if you want

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 6 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Why? UHC is cheaper than the current system. You wouldn't need any extra taxes.

[–] TheRagingGeek@lemmy.world 14 points 17 hours ago

Really shows me how traumatized I am by United Health Care when I see UHC and it immediately brings them to mind and not Universal. I had to put in some work to understand that Acronym

[–] Dragon@lemmy.ml -3 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

It's only cheaper if you consider current healthcare costs. It would require tax increases, and under current progressive tax models, those would be disproportionately high for the upper class, for whom the increase would not offset the elimination of their healthcare premium.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t know how you can say with any confidence that the increase would not offset the elimination of their healthcare premium when the system literallydoesn’t exist.

[–] Dragon@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I said under current progressive tax models.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

And what would this non-existent healthcare system cost them to contribute to?

[–] Dragon@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It depends on the state. Massachusetts actually does have a flat income tax, so maybe it would be easier to do there. But even so, wealthy people might prefer to buy private plans, and see the tax as redundant.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

This is a wildly different comment/take than what you were saying earlier.

[–] Dragon@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

You literally said - a complete blanket statement - that it would result in “higher income“ people paying more than they save. I said I don’t know how you could know that when the system doesn’t exist yet. Now you are completely shifting gears and not even addressing what you said initially, as well as narrowing the scope to MA for your (unsure why…?) example even though they have a very unique case.

[–] Dragon@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm conceding that it might not always be the case. I don't have an answer to your question because I don't feel like doing the research and math to figure out what the top earners would pay in any given state under universal health insurance. It seems to me obvious that it would represent a large tax increase, and that that increase would disproportionately effect top earners. If you have reason to believe it would universally save people money, I'm all ears for a reason or argument.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The arguments for how it will save people money are readily available, a cursory Google search will show you them. Your claim is the one that is not as easy to verify. You are claiming it will be more expensive even though we literally don’t even know what it would look like here. There are plenty of examples in other countries that are sustainable, why don’t you just take a look at those? Why don’t you look at all ofthe research that has been done on the subject? Lift a fucking finger before you spout your theoretical nonsense

[–] Dragon@lemmy.ml -2 points 4 hours ago

I never said it wouldn't be cheaper overall, I'm aware that's true. I'm saying for top earners, it won't. Insurance costs the same for everyone, taxes don't. The only way around that entirely is a regressive tax.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 14 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

No, the sum of all premiums paid by all Americans is way more than is required. You could make it a flat tax and it'd still be cheaper.

The tax increase is more than offset by the cost of premiums.

[–] Dragon@lemmy.ml -1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

That may be the case, but do you have any evidence or reasoning? There are a certain number of people right now who don't have insurance or who have very bad insurance, and a universal insurance would have to have to make up what's missing for those people.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

There's a variety of ways to implement it, but the vast majority save trillions in the long run. https://www.citizen.org/news/fact-check-medicare-for-all-would-save-the-u-s-trillions-public-option-would-leave-millions-uninsured-not-garner-savings/ has a couple sources listed, even a Koch-funded institute found it would save money.

The reasoning is simple: you cut out the middlemen who demand a portion of the premiums for themselves. Those costs are instantly removed, and there isn't really anything that starts costing more in return.

There's also collective governmental bargaining on procedures and medication which lowers prices.

[–] Dragon@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

I understand that it saves money overall. I don't understand how it could save money for individual high-income tax payers. At some earning level, your taxes will be raised by more than you would pay for insurance. Even under a flat tax, that has to be the case, right? You would need a regressive tax to actually make it beneficial to every single resident.

[–] TheRagingGeek@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

Yeah we need to deflate the disproportionately high pricing of the health care caused by insurance as well, if we could get it at the national level we could eliminate a lot of the back office overhead, and then maybe negotiate a revisit of the master charge list so that Tylenol in hospital isn't something crazy like $250 dollars a dose. State by state this would probably be much more difficult.