3 ms·

> I recall debating with a friend who was against socialized healthcare recently, and then seeing them promote a GoFundMe campaign for a mutual friend’s medical

> I recall debating with a friend who was against socialized healthcare recently, and then seeing them promote a GoFundMe campaign for a mutual friend’s medical bills on Facebook a few days later. > The irony was lost on him. I think the key is that Americans love to dream of themselves as wealthy philanthropists (no matter how poor they actually are). I'm not sure I see the irony either. if I'm understanding correctly, your friends pooled their own money together to help someone they knew and cared about. how is this similar to socialized healthcare at scale?

chasd00 6y ago
right, the gofundme is voluntary socialized medicine is mandatory. People don't like being told what to do but, given the chance, will usually volunteer.
pembrook 6y ago
Because at scale, countries are also just a group of people pooling resources to achieve greater outcomes. The only difference between micro-socialized funding (GoFundMe) and macro-socialized funding (government healthcare) is that the government version results in massive cost savings for the entire system. Micro-socialization is the worst of both worlds. No cost savings, no preventative care, and only the most sensational and dramatic ailments receive GoFundMe support from peers. For proof of the cost savings, look at the cost of X given procedure in any developed country with socialized care (Australia, Sweden, Germany, etc.) and then compare it to the US. In the US it will cost anywhere from 2X-10X more to do X given procedure. It's not even worth citing any research since there's mountains of studies proving this.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > Because at scale, countries are also just a group of people pooling resources to achieve greater outcomes. > The only difference between micro-socialized funding (GoFundMe) and macro-socialized funding (government healthcare) is that the government version results in massive cost savings for the entire system. there is a key difference though. in one case, a group of elected representatives is deciding what to do with everyone's resources. in the other, individuals are deciding what to do with their own resources. at a high level, they look pretty similar: a group pooling resources to help someone. but the control over allocation is completely different. this is a really important distinction to understand. most people are a lot more willing to give their resources to friends/family than to random strangers. your (compelling to me!) argument about efficiency will not convince people if you don't acknowledge the allocation part.

chasd00 6y ago

right, the gofundme is voluntary socialized medicine is mandatory. People don't like being told what to do but, given the chance, will usually volunteer.

pembrook 6y ago

Because at scale, countries are also just a group of people pooling resources to achieve greater outcomes. The only difference between micro-socialized funding (GoFundMe) and macro-socialized funding (government healthcare) is that the government version results in massive cost savings for the entire system. Micro-socialization is the worst of both worlds. No cost savings, no preventative care, and only the most sensational and dramatic ailments receive GoFundMe support from peers. For proof of the cost savings, look at the cost of X given procedure in any developed country with socialized care (Australia, Sweden, Germany, etc.) and then compare it to the US. In the US it will cost anywhere from 2X-10X more to do X given procedure. It's not even worth citing any research since there's mountains of studies proving this.

leetcrew 6y ago
> Because at scale, countries are also just a group of people pooling resources to achieve greater outcomes. > The only difference between micro-socialized funding (GoFundMe) and macro-socialized funding (government healthcare) is that the government version results in massive cost savings for the entire system. there is a key difference though. in one case, a group of elected representatives is deciding what to do with everyone's resources. in the other, individuals are deciding what to do with their own resources. at a high level, they look pretty similar: a group pooling resources to help someone. but the control over allocation is completely different. this is a really important distinction to understand. most people are a lot more willing to give their resources to friends/family than to random strangers. your (compelling to me!) argument about efficiency will not convince people if you don't acknowledge the allocation part.