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

  • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    2 months ago

    Ok, so I completely support universal healthcare. However, it still is true that you are paying for “someone else’s healthcare”. How?

    Let’s assume that there’s a flat tax percentage - 30% for all. (Actually most developed countries have progressive tax systems, but let’s ignore that for now). The more your income, the more tax you pay. Therefore, some people pay more tax than others. This means, that some people contribute more to fund the healthcare system compared to others.

    Some people have pre-existing conditions. Some people may just be unhealthy due to bad lifestyle choices. I might be incredibly fit. The probability of me falling sick would be very less. If there were a multi payer healthcare system, then perhaps I might not need to spend much money on healthcare. A universal single payer system might be forcing me to pay more for others’ healthcare. Therefore, saying that I’m paying for someone else’s healthcare isn’t inaccurate.

    That being said, healthcare is a human right. Every human, regardless of financial status deserves timely access to good healthcare. That’s why I support it.

    • burgersc12@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      2 months ago

      Right now we pay for other peoples healthcare and we also pay some shitty middlemen who tell us what treatments they think are necessary. If we cut out the middlemen its literally cheaper than our current system.

      • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        We pay the middlemen, yes. I don’t see how we pay for other people’s healthcare. The private insurance that I’ve experienced takes many factors into account (age, quality of health, pre-existing conditions and so on). Thankfully because I’m both young, and don’t have pre-existing conditions, I pay less insurance premiums than a kid born with diabetes.

        Remember, we’re talking about technicality here. We aren’t talking about ethics. Strictly from a money standpoint, we’re not paying for other people’s insurance.

        • Strykker@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          2 months ago

          If you pay for insurance you are paying for other people’s Healthcare. The whole reason to do insurance is that you have the ability to use more money from it than you ever put in, but will hopefully never need to. Otherwise it would make more sense to just have a health savings account.

          • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            2 months ago

            What about the premiums though? Say the insurance premiums for x amount of coverage are 100 dollars. Doesn’t matter if I’m a billionaire or if I’m homeless. The premium stays the same.

            In a single payer universal healthcare system however, the premium would be a percentage of my income (collected via taxes). Suddenly, the 100 dollars becomes hundreds of thousands of dollars. Therefore, from my perspective, I am “paying for someone else’s healthcare”. This is the technicality that I’m talking about.

            Now of course, fuck my perspective because fuck billionaires. This however, is out of scope of the discussion.

            • Zink@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              You also have to consider that the healthcare is worth a lot more money to the billionaire than the homeless guy. Just like the roads and the protection of the armed forces worth more money to him. I’m sure the billionaire is a fan of price discrimination too, conveniently enough!

              • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Sure! The homeless guy is very likely uninsured. They might die in the streets because of this. The billionaire on the other hand would get higher quality healthcare. What would not be happening though, is the billionaire paying for the homeless guy’s healthcare.

                Now of course, a consequence of that is the homeless man dying. Ethically, this is an incredibly shitty system. THAT’S why we need single payer universal healthcare. However, a consequence of that would be the rich paying for the poor people’s healthcare.

                • Zink@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Yeah I didn’t comment on the “person A paying for person B” technicality because that’s always part of the deal. It happens with private insurance too. If the lowest paid worker at a company is healthy, and the billionaire CEO has a multitude of health problems, then if they’re using the same company insurance the poor person is paying for the rich person. It doesn’t matter that they’re paying the same premiums — the healthy poor person is getting less out than they paid in, and the sick rich person is getting more out than they paid in.

        • Podunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes you are. The insurance company takes money from healthy people, scoops some off the top for themselves, and then distributes the rest to pay for grandmas hip replacement.

          Unless you use the same or more than what you paid into insurance, you are subsidizing someone elses healthcare.

      • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        Agreed. The ethical argument for universal healthcare triumphs everything else, assuming that we value human life equally.

        • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          Except the US clearly has a stratified society, even when it tries to lighten that with myths of fair pay, opportunity and get-rich-quick schemes (all the old American dreams before the post WWII townhouse family.)

          Part of the rise of fascist rhetoric (targeting minorities like trans folk and immigrants) is to distract from the failure of these myths. Millennials and Zoomers know they’re probably never going to own a home, or get to retire well, which not only discourages the Protestant work ethic (see quiet-quitting) but also elevates civil unrest (see the Great Depression).

          So the Republican response is to kill elections and install one-party autocracy backed by a police state. That way they don’t even have to listen to fellow Republicans, after they realize getting benes from being party loyalists are not actually soon to arrive. This is literally a return to monarchy, as Representative and constitutional historian Jamie Rasken has observed.

        • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Well it also helps that it would be overall cheaper, with the only difference being that a few assholes wouldn’t be getting rich off it at everyone else’s expense.

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      2 months ago

      For some reason everyone thinks they are the healthy ones that don’t and never will need healthcare, not like those unhealthy everyone else

      • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        True. I’m playing Devil’s advocate here. These r arguments that I’ve heard that make sense technically, but not ethically. I’m not saying that real life me would want to give up my universal healthcare lol. It’s a safety net that I absolutely want in my life (for selfish reasons as well)

        • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          No. These arguments don’t even make sense technically. Hospitals generally don’t deny emergency care, often leaving people with huge bills after their stay. If someone doesn’t pay, insurance needs to recoup the cost by charging higher rates for everyone. On top of that, preventative care is often cheaper than emergency care, with poorly insured people usually receiving less of it.

          Without socialized healthcare, you pay for the care of everyone that can’t pay through your insurance AND people receive worse care overall. The healthcare system functions worse, even when money isn’t as much of a concern. Unless you’re a billionaire with private doctors on payroll 24/7, anyone can get fucked over when emergency care is shit.

          There is no logical argument for our system unless you believe wealth can always protect you. They think the foundation can rot away without ever hurting them, but that’s the fantasy of people who believe in perpetual free lunches.

          • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            2 months ago

            Insurance premiums are flat. They don’t give a shit about your income. The insurance premium for a minimum wage worker and a billionaire would be the same for a given coverage.

            When you make it universal and single payer, the billionaire has to pay more money for the same quality of healthcare compared to the minimum wage worker. Therefore, the billionaire is essentially subsidizing the minimum wage worker’s healthcare.

            Now of course, you can argue about the ethics of private property, how the billionaire became a billionaire by wage theft and so on. The point is, within the capitalist system that we have, universal healthcare is still the rich person paying for the poor person’s healthcare. This is the technicality that I’m talking about.

            Remember, I support universal single payer healthcare. I am merely talking about technicality here.

            To address the emergency room situation, what happens when the person being admitted lacks any sort of insurance? If they can’t cough up money, then they go into debt. Their credit scores get screwed. Life becomes hell.

            • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              The minimum wage worker simply doesn’t have the same quality insurance. They could never afford the best plans, as those are more than they can pay, so they get more limited plans with less coverage, fewer options, and longer wait times. You often need to pay out of pocket to get acceptable care for certain issues, even if you have decent insurance.

              With the emergency room issue, most of that debt the uninsured people take on never gets paid by them. This isn’t just their problem, but a problem for hospitals and doctors and banks who don’t get paid for their work. The banks don’t just shrug their shoulders and accept the systemic loss, but recoup the costs from the entire medical industry. It costs more than 2x for a bandage here because those banks make the cost of providing care higher at every possible step.

              As more become uninsured or unable to pay, even the hospitals can’t stay out of the red, shuttering care for millions. Many areas have zero options for hundreds of miles as a result, meaning many people die preventable deaths because it takes hours to get it. The US has a geographic scale you cannot comprehend as someone elsewhere. It’s on the scale of the EU. State politics serve country size populations, but the relative homogeneity of culture betrays this fact.

              You have absolutely no idea how a world without single payer works because you assume we have basic shit you take for granted. You once again demonstrate that arguments against single payer MUST IGNORE facts to work, cutting out the bigger picture to keep you from recognizing the scale of the problem. It’s why capitalism is so impossible to tackle in general.

              • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                The minimum wage worker simply doesn’t have the same quality insurance.

                THERE! So the billionaire pays more to get higher quality insurance. In a single payer universal healthcare system, the billionaire and the minimum wage worker both get the same quality of healthcare despite paying different amounts. This is what I mean.

                You have absolutely no idea how a world without single payer works because you assume we have basic shit you take for granted.

                I have experience with the Indian multi payer, non universal healthcare system. It sucks a lot more than the US. U guys at least have the affordable healthcare act, which prohibits discrimination against ppl with pre-existing conditions by insurance companies. Indians don’t even have that. The universal single payer healthcare system that I have experience with is the Canadian one.

                Now, of course the arguments against universal healthcare fall flat on ethical grounds, as you explained above. I am not saying that universal healthcare is bad or whatever. However, that does not change the fact that universal healthcare follows the “from each according to their ability to each according to their need” thing. Rich or poor, everyone gets the same quality of healthcare despite paying different prices. The rich here are subsidizing the poor.

                Now, there’s nothing wrong with that. The concepts of private property themselves cause trouble, where we lose all sight of humanity, blah blah blah. That’s a discussion for another day.

                The point is, if you are rich and want a better life for yourself, you probably should be against universal healthcare. If u r anything but that, and want a better life for everyone- u, ur family, ur friends, or just society in general, universal healthcare is a common sense choice.

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

                  That doesn’t change the fact that selfishness in this case is measurably less prudent in the long run. This is often the case for capitalist ills, but being selfish is only in one’s self interest if they ignore the bigger picture. The effects of our broken healthcare system are more well documented and understood, but it’s also the case with poverty and climate change. They make things worse for even the wealthiest people.

                  Even though the collective class of wealthy people is smaller and more capable of working together, they often got there by refusing to think about the collective, while those who were less selfish tended to get filtered out. It’s all too easy to undercut others who try to work together, so they choose the worse option consistently and fuck over everyone in the process. It’s the prisoner’s dilemma, with no one having the guts to risk the others getting ahead.

                  That is the fundamental reason why no major country will abandon fossil fuels. All our kids would be better off, but there’s too much risk of losing out to someone who didn’t do their part.

                  However, part of the problem is that the capitalists in charge refuse to acknowledge the benefits of not being selfish. To avoid the internal conflict of questioning their choices, we easily ignore unfortunate truths. It happens everywhere, from comedy entertainment to the highest levels of science. Repeated game theory does not favor the most selfish strategies, but people think that selfishness pays off in the long run, so they refuse to consider the most prudent options.

                  So no, you are actually wrong about what’s in rich people’s self interest, but you’re wrong in the same way they are. Capitalists are not more logical than average people; they’re actually quite stubborn and stupid. They’ll drink lead and die from it before they’ll accept that they’re wrong about it being safe.

    • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      it still is true that you are paying for “someone else’s healthcare”.

      Yeah but that’s ALREADY how it works. With private insurance some people pay their premium month after month after month and make no claims. Some people get paid out more than they’ll ever pay in. That’s how insurance works. Plus with private insurance toss in shareholder profits and millions of dollars in quirky commercials off the top of that.

      • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        Insurance premiums aren’t decided by my income. They are decided by my probability of needing the coverage offered. Therefore, if I am rich, I end up paying a smaller percentage of my income on insurance premiums for the same coverage compared to a poor person.

        Single payer universal healthcare makes healthcare more expensive for rich people and cheaper for poor people. I’m not saying that’s bad ofc.

        • friedmag@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          This is true for any real insurance, but not health insurance. Health Insurance premiums are decided by your employer, someone who has no reason to even be involved. It’s entirely based on how much “benefit” they think they need to give you compared to their peers.

    • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 months ago

      You’re already doing that with insurance premiums. Universal healthcare is that but cheaper because the government doesn’t have a profit incentive to price gouge.

      • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        2 months ago

        Universal healthcare is that but cheaper because the government doesn’t have a profit incentive to price gouge.

        Cheaper for everyone except higher income folk. They would benefit from a multi payer, private insurance system as they would end up paying less.

        You’re already doing that with insurance premiums.

        Insurance premiums aren’t decided based on my income. They’re decided based on the probability of me needing healthcare. Therefore, we kinda are not doing that right now. Universal, single payer healthcare would mean that healthcare expenditure would increase with my income. If I’m rich, I would be very sad.

        But I’m not. Also, eat the rich. Healthcare is a human right. I am very happy with the universal healthcare that I have lol. I wouldn’t want it to go away at all. But again, I was talking about the technicality here.

        • Strykker@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 months ago

          Guess who tends to need Healthcare most often, the poor and the elderly, two groups that don’t tend to have much income to spend on health premiums.

          But don’t worry it’s not like ‘you’ will ever be poor or elderly so you shouldn’t care about health coverage for those groups.

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

            But don’t worry it’s not like ‘you’ will ever be poor or elderly so you shouldn’t care about health coverage for those groups.

            Spot on. This person isn’t playing devils advocate, they’re playing self defence of their own cognitive dissonance.

            • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Huh??? I never even presented my own ethical position. We were talking about TECHNICALITIES here. Suddenly u’r accusing me of holding a shitty ethical position? Fuck right off.

              I rlly try to be as polite as possible online. But jeez r u guys fkin stupid. We’re having a logical argument about technicalities for fuck’s sake. I said a thousand times that I support single payer universal healthcare. I love it, and I don’t want to lose it. I’m just pointing at the economic exchange here and how it is different from a non-universal multi payer healthcare system. That’s it. But NOOOOOOO how could I do that??? Ugh

        • Strykker@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 months ago

          Oh boo hoo the poor 0.01 percent erst and their extra thousand dollars going to Healthcare sure is going to ruin them.

          • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Oh fuck right off. My political positions r my political positions because I’ve formed synthesis by evaluating both, thesis and antithesis. I consider myself a leftist. This however does not mean that I shouldn’t talk about antithesis for leftist theses. We’re not in a cult, uk.