3 ms·

"user pays" prevents the benefit from occurring. For example in New Zealand (public healthcare) there used to be a $5 copay for prescribed medication (by gover

"user pays" prevents the benefit from occurring. For example in New Zealand (public healthcare) there used to be a $5 copay for prescribed medication (by government healthcare doctors). There is now no copay ($0) because 3% of people would not get the medicine because of cost. This was particularly true for low-income families, Māori, Pacific peoples, and disabled New Zealanders. That said, our conservative party wants to bring the fees back: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/budget-2023-5-prescription-fee-scrapped-but-will-national-bring-it-back/VUV6MBOOFBABXEODSE4XG3SZBM/ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/budget-2023-5-prescription-fee... If people don't pay a small amount to get something important like medicine, they perhaps wouldn't pay even a a token $20 or 50% for something luxury/"unnecessary" like easier access to the internet.

1letterunixname 3y ago
Exactly. This concept is borne of "let them eat cake" wealth privilege gatekeeping/utopian magical thinking. There are homeless people and the elderly who are continually deciding whether to buy medicine or food. It's possible to distribute benefits fairly based on limiting a physical device to 1 per person.
sokoloff 3y ago
This doesn't preclude giving the people who might not "buy" one $50 to spend on whatever the hell they want and then having one of the things on offer be a $200 Chromebook with a $50 price tag on it. The problem of "someone has no money" should be addressed by giving them money not a Chromebook. If a $200 Chromebook isn't worth $50 to them, I'd rather they keep the $50 and buy something that is worth $50 to them.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
tomjen3 3y ago
I admit that I am hard pressed to have sympathy for people who won't even get themselves 5 dollars to scrap together for something as essential as medicine and that may cloud my judgement, but in your example there is still a filter that prevents hoarding, as somebody has to first go to a doctor to get the prescription and the medicine will only be given to people who have some need for it. In this case essentially everybody could benefit from getting a government paid laptop, if only to resell it, which I think means that there is a big difference between the two cases.
- robocat 3y ago
  > no sympathy I guess you think they chose to be both sick and poor. Perhaps you also believe children choose to be sick and kids get to select their own parents? Fortunately I live in New Zealand where we collectively want to care for unfortunate people - even though sometimes the misfortune might be their own fault. Yes, it costs me a car in taxes every year to pay for a first world government health system. But at least my country enabled me to be rich enough to do that. And I'm lucky to be healthy - for which I can thank my fellow citizens and past governments to a good extent. I sincerely wish you the best of luck to be healthy and wealthy.

1letterunixname 3y ago

Exactly. This concept is borne of "let them eat cake" wealth privilege gatekeeping/utopian magical thinking. There are homeless people and the elderly who are continually deciding whether to buy medicine or food. It's possible to distribute benefits fairly based on limiting a physical device to 1 per person.

sokoloff 3y ago

This doesn't preclude giving the people who might not "buy" one $50 to spend on whatever the hell they want and then having one of the things on offer be a $200 Chromebook with a $50 price tag on it. The problem of "someone has no money" should be addressed by giving them money not a Chromebook. If a $200 Chromebook isn't worth $50 to them, I'd rather they keep the $50 and buy something that is worth $50 to them.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

tomjen3 3y ago

I admit that I am hard pressed to have sympathy for people who won't even get themselves 5 dollars to scrap together for something as essential as medicine and that may cloud my judgement, but in your example there is still a filter that prevents hoarding, as somebody has to first go to a doctor to get the prescription and the medicine will only be given to people who have some need for it. In this case essentially everybody could benefit from getting a government paid laptop, if only to resell it, which I think means that there is a big difference between the two cases.

robocat 3y ago
> no sympathy I guess you think they chose to be both sick and poor. Perhaps you also believe children choose to be sick and kids get to select their own parents? Fortunately I live in New Zealand where we collectively want to care for unfortunate people - even though sometimes the misfortune might be their own fault. Yes, it costs me a car in taxes every year to pay for a first world government health system. But at least my country enabled me to be rich enough to do that. And I'm lucky to be healthy - for which I can thank my fellow citizens and past governments to a good extent. I sincerely wish you the best of luck to be healthy and wealthy.