Do the right wing women in relationships with right wing guys think it's like a draco malfoy thing where they're a good guy underneath?

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.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Perfide@reddthat.com

10 points

11 months ago

We should fix the cost of healthcare being our of control, rather than subsidizing the treatment and lining the pockets of big pharma

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)

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

jasory@programming.dev

0 points

11 months ago

“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.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

darq@kbin.social

1 point

11 months ago

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.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

jasory@programming.dev

0 points

11 months ago

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.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

darq@kbin.social

1 point

11 months ago

Because they have higher tax rates.

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.

Additionally if you actually poll the public, they do not want to pay the additional taxes to fund this universal healthcare.

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.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

jasory@programming.dev

0 points

11 months ago

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.

permalink

report

parent

Show more comments

Do the right wing women in relationships with right wing guys think it's like a draco malfoy thing where they're a good guy underneath?

Ask Lemmy

!asklemmy@lemmy.world

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

Partnered Communities:

Community stats

Community moderators