7 ms·

> There is nothing preventing socialised medicine for working. It costs less per capita nowadays than it did when it was put in place and productivity skyrocket

> There is nothing preventing socialised medicine for working. It costs less per capita nowadays than it did when it was put in place and productivity skyrocketed since. That's because of the budget cuts. Service will continue to be trimmed until the system collapses.

stevezsa8 4y ago
I feel you're kinda moving the goal posts here. From "always going to be unaffordable" to "Service will continue to be trimmed until the system collapses"
- linuxftw 4y ago
  That's what unaffordable means. If it's unaffordable, you can't maintain it indefinitely. You might maintain it for some time, but inevitably it's going to have its budget cut, which will induce more problems, rinse, repeat.
  - oliwarner 4y ago
    That's not unaffordable, that's not afforded. Choosing not to pay for something —when you pay for so much else— isn't the same thing as not being able to afford its upkeep. It's an active decision, not a passive imbalance. There is a level of healthcare that we cannot afford, but pretending that we're there already when we know privatising elements is going to make it more expensive for everyone is not honest. There are enough variations on the theme to know what works, and that our current system —while starved, and poorly served by central political whimsy— still delivers the best value out of any healthcare system. As I've said elsewhere, subsidised childcare, after-school programmes, and mental and social health care all network together to keep us working at our best. Not only are they cheaper when centralised, relieving the burden makes people happier. Having to choose between your health and your job is no way to live and this ethos of welfare, having your citizens' backs is a key aspect of high-tax society. Once you stop worrying about poor people with less, life is better.
    - linuxftw 4y ago
      What you're describing is a communist welfare system. Little incentive for individuals to work hard, you'll just increase the number of people totally dependent upon the system. Not sustainable.
      - oliwarner 4y ago
        I'm not. That's socialism. Investing in public services that make life and society better. It's many key components short of communism.
      - the_only_law 4y ago
        If your definition of “communist welfare system” is a handful of services being subsidized than I’m afraid you’re already living in a communist dystopia.
        linuxftw 4y ago
        > handful of services Seems like a sizeable portion of someone's personal responsibilities.

stevezsa8 4y ago

I feel you're kinda moving the goal posts here. From "always going to be unaffordable" to "Service will continue to be trimmed until the system collapses"

linuxftw 4y ago
That's what unaffordable means. If it's unaffordable, you can't maintain it indefinitely. You might maintain it for some time, but inevitably it's going to have its budget cut, which will induce more problems, rinse, repeat.
- oliwarner 4y ago
  That's not unaffordable, that's not afforded. Choosing not to pay for something —when you pay for so much else— isn't the same thing as not being able to afford its upkeep. It's an active decision, not a passive imbalance. There is a level of healthcare that we cannot afford, but pretending that we're there already when we know privatising elements is going to make it more expensive for everyone is not honest. There are enough variations on the theme to know what works, and that our current system —while starved, and poorly served by central political whimsy— still delivers the best value out of any healthcare system. As I've said elsewhere, subsidised childcare, after-school programmes, and mental and social health care all network together to keep us working at our best. Not only are they cheaper when centralised, relieving the burden makes people happier. Having to choose between your health and your job is no way to live and this ethos of welfare, having your citizens' backs is a key aspect of high-tax society. Once you stop worrying about poor people with less, life is better.
  - linuxftw 4y ago
    What you're describing is a communist welfare system. Little incentive for individuals to work hard, you'll just increase the number of people totally dependent upon the system. Not sustainable.
    - oliwarner 4y ago
      I'm not. That's socialism. Investing in public services that make life and society better. It's many key components short of communism.
    - the_only_law 4y ago
      If your definition of “communist welfare system” is a handful of services being subsidized than I’m afraid you’re already living in a communist dystopia.
      - linuxftw 4y ago
        > handful of services Seems like a sizeable portion of someone's personal responsibilities.