• Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is why the US government runs the mail service, since it guarantees delivery to every address, no matter how remote, even if at a loss.

    This is why education should stay a government service, so that schools exist for every student, even when a given class is too small.

    And this is why medicine will always need a socialized element, since rare diseases are not profitable enough to treat.

    • Roflol@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      socialized healthcare will still be better at popular diseases. None of the approaches are particularly good for rare disease sufferers. But socialized is not a silver bullet.

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The point is that private healthcare is driven by the profit motive.

        The state is the only institution under our current social organization both that carries capacities at the same scale as corporations, and that legitimately may be supporting the interests of the public.

        • Roflol@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I live with socialized healthcare, its nice. Especially for the poor, who would not be getting any without it. But you get random doctor that might be good or not very good. Some medicine you wont get cause its too expensive to procure. In the us, it seems if you got good coverage, you get better healthcare than pretty much all countries with socialized healthcare today. But i dont live in the us, so i dont know

            • Roflol@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So you are saying you dont get better healthcare in the US than say, UK, if you have a good healthcare insurance?

          • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you are elite enough to get top notch health insurance in the United States, but not elite enough to hire a personal supplier doctor, then you get top-notch healthcare.

            If you’re below that tier, you might get adequate healthcare but not great healthcare. The population health of Europe seems to be consistently better on their socialized programs.

            Now yes, UK’s NHS has been deteriorating specifically correlating to when the Tories outsourced it to commercial providers so that’s an instance that appears to be socialized healthcare that got corrupted by capitalism. As is George W. Bush’s modification of Medicare so that we clients allegedly choose a provider that is then paid by Medicare. It also shifted prescriptions from Medicaid to Medicare D, again outsourcing fulfillment to privatized suppliers.

            What is curious is that medical services, medicines and medical treatments cost typically more than twice as much in the US than they do anywhere else for the same thing so we’re paying extra, whether we’re getting premium or shit. As a result, those who have to pay out of pocket will often get their meds shipped from Canada or Mexico.

            So regardless of what your medical system outside of the US, the medical system in the US is not a good model to follow.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not quite sure your point. Any medical care program will be better at treating common diseases than rare diseases. There’s just more data to pull in research and development. We get more examples of what works and doesn’t.

        But the point of socialized services is to make sure everyone gets served.

        One of the major concerns regarding any good or service that is essential (not just medical care, but food, water and power) is that selling it as a commodity is a moral hazard. Since the customer is obligated to buy (or starve, freeze in the elements, die of dehydration) an unchecked capitalist can charge any price and, historically, has.

        Before the age of states and movements away from monarchy towards (more) public-serving governments, we depended on the Church’s (meager) charity, and just accepted that a lot of people were going to die year after year, from famine, plague, freezing and so on. But I think we’re trying to do better than the middle ages.

        Here in the US, the federal and state governments are completely captured by plutocratic interests, and it’s moving back towards autocracy. And our Republican officials have expressed that they’re okay with letting small children work long hours in hazardous environments, and letting poor children starve.

      • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        All money is free. It is not taken from some limited store, but rather created by government, freely.

        The value, stability, and legitimacy of money is sustained by the supremacy of state power. By such power, the government both determines the supply and shapes the distribution of money, and is assured never to be insolvent.

        No distribution of money is natural or naturally superior.

        Money is a social construct directed by political will.

        Price inflation currently occurring is largely due to the political choice to distribute money to corporations.

        That is, as a consequence of particular political choices, the already imbalanced distribution has become even more unfavorable toward workers.

        If the political will were rather toward distributing money to workers, then prices may follow a pattern of gradual inflation, but as long as workers’ income keeps pace, workers would not be harmed by it even in the slightly.

        • Bgugi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Money is not free. The cost of new money is devaluation of old money.

          • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Devaluation is not a cost.

            It is, however, a consequence of expanding the money supply.

            In turn, however, expansion of supply is not a threat, because of the various capacities for the government to withdraw money, as through taxation, or central bank policy.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        You do seem offended. Whatever are you talking about?

        I don’t see your point other than an explicit joy in the suffering of others. Do I have that right? You think people should go hungry for your personal pleasure?

        • nawapad@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          They must be having a miserable time to get so much out of other people suffering, but that’s in line with most reactionary asses I’ve met.

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I recommend you read about Modern Monetary Theory. The US has Monetary Sovereignty in a fiat currency, and therefore is not limited by taxation when it comes to federal funding. Instead, the US is limited by the real economy, which is worth trillions of dollars more than the federal budget. If the federal government stopped with the federal budget and just spent on the real economy, it wouldn’t impact inflation in any way. We do this already with the military, like outspending the USSR on military tech for a decade, sending hundreds of billions of dollars worth of equipment to Ukraine, and spending billions to support Israel’s genocide.

        • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m guessing facts won’t work here. The “consequences” he’s laughing about are a consistent >100% ROI on welfare. He’s laughing because he’s proud conservatives are hurting the economy (and even their own bank accounts!) by hurting the poor, either out of willful ignorance or willful malice.

          • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Reactionaries are not hurting the economy.

            They are hurting the working class, including themselves, while helping the oligarchs.

            Why, you may ask, do they hurt themselves, and help the oligarchs?

            The reason is that they always do what the man on the television screen tells them.

            • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Reactionaries are not hurting the economy.

              Weakening welfare hurts the economy. That’s what he’s laughing about. Welfare has always been the biggest no-brainer in economic theory. It always makes the country more than you spend. Even the wealthy.

              Why, you may ask, do they hurt themselves, and help the oligarchs? The reason is that they always do what the man on the television screen tells them.

              Do you know many conservatives, for real? I’m not talking Trump-heads. I’m talking actual conservatives. There’s this underlying attitude that the world is a “free” place where you work hard and earn your way to betterment. You hear it in the voices of the older generation, but also the newer generation, when they talk about things like “work ethic”, or someone being “too proud to beg” when there’s a disaster and family or friends try to offer help. Have you never heard anyone say “I don’t want nothin for free”, or tell their boss “I don’t need that kinda money, just pay me ____ and I’ll be happy”? I’ve seen and heard all those things.

              One way to look at conservativism is that it’s means based, where the Left is more ends based. A conservative cares more about “doing the right thing” than “making the world a better place”, They see the government’s place as “enforcing peace” and nothing else, so social programs seem like a giant mandated charity to them.

              Conservatives rarely oppose welfare because they think it doesn’t work. They oppose welfare because they think it’s wrong whether it works or not. And that’s not a talking head telling them that, it’s decades of growing up surrounded by that same hierarchical mindset.

              Like John F Kennedy said “Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You. Ask what you can do for your country”. There’s people who take that to heart and feel it’s not the country’s job to make their life a better place. And will allow themselves to sink into poverty holding on to that belief.

              They’re horribly wrong, but if you don’t understand why they feel that way, it’s hard to help move the country forward.

                • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  There is no “The Economy”.

                  There really is. Even without capitalism, the median buying power of an individual will always be a thing.

                  Weakening welfare hurts workers.

                  Obviously. It hurts everyone, so of course it hurts workers.

                  • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No. Weakening welfare helps the oligarchs.

                    Notice how they keep doing it.

                    Workers and oligarchs have mutually antagonist interests.

                    “The Economy” is a construct that obfuscates the class antagonism.

        • UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Privatisation hounds do the same shit all over: enshittify a public service then offer a private alternative as a kind of shitty trojan savoir to the problem they created

      • SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because it isn’t? It’s up by about 6%. The numbers are more accurate as well.

        Frankly, even if your statement was correct, it would be the equivalent of asking why only people who go to the doctor have cancer.

        Lastly, if we are throwing out random facts and trying to extrapolate the value of a system, why is Cuba’s literacy rate always close to 100%?

        • Bgugi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Official government numbers, of an authoritarian government that considers it’s education system a point of pride, self-reported in government census, by citizens afraid to criticize their government, after being filtered for those that received formal education.

          Sounds a lot like the North Korean voter turnout to me…

          • SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Some of what you said is true, some of it is bull shit. The numbers have been corraberated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, as well as World Bank. Cuban’s really do have an exceptionally high, near 100%, literacy rate. Though many are at what America would call an “advanced first grade level”. So its not exactly perfect. But percentage wise, almost all Cubans can read. Which can’t be said for American citizens.

            However, their education system does strongly push political beliefs, so it is not simply for the betterment of the citizens. It tries to encourage a world view favorable to the government. Using literacy as a way to teach “what to think”. (Not that the United States can throw stones from our glass house… I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States, etc. etc).

            That being said, to compare Cuba to North Korea is hyperbolic to the extent that it is obvious you are either trying to be inflammatory, or are simply clueless.

            Regardless, my point was that the value of something can not be pulled from a single data point. So in your haste to discredit a country you dislike, you kinda helped me prove my original point, so thanks!

            P.S. What’s wrong with the education system being a point of pride? I wish the US took more pride in ours frankly.

      • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Probably some combination of our definition of literacy being adjusted, and the availability of more accurate data about populations and how educated they are.

        • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          The bastians of the homeschooling movement that allows household chores to be considered curriculum because of a campaigned for lack of oversight is also where there are low literacy rates? Say it isn’t so…