darq,
@darq@kbin.social avatar

People don’t actually pay these costs there employer does, usually as an employment incentive.

Tying your ability to access healthcare to a private employer who can remove that access on a whim is utterly insane.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In fact universal systems literally tax the poor to pay the rich, it’s the epitome of a regressive policy.

That might be the single stupidest thing I've ever read. Congratulations.

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.

It is literally empirical fact. Facts don't care about your feelings.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • asklemmy@lemmy.world
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #