3 ms·

Death toll is also going to increase in 4 years with the BBB and people losing Medicaid/Medicare. A lot of people gonna discover that capitalism does in fact h

Death toll is also going to increase in 4 years with the BBB and people losing Medicaid/Medicare. A lot of people gonna discover that capitalism does in fact have a finite price on a human life.

guywithahat 1y ago
You say that like it's a capitalism problem, when some of the longest wait times and worst care occur in countries with government-run healthcare. Lots of people die waiting for care in Canada, and the UK will regularly allow their healthcare system to get so bad people are dying in hallways, and then some "hero" politician will bring in a bunch of money just to restart the cycle. The article itself places plenty of blame on medicare/medicaid.
- triceratops 1y ago
  They still have higher life expectancy and lower costs. It's easy to have lower wait times when you don't have to serve everyone.
  - hackeraccount 1y ago
    The relationship between healthcare and life expectancy is sketchy at best. If you want to increase life expectancy you're better off touching on public health issues.
    - triceratops 1y ago
      > The relationship between healthcare and life expectancy is sketchy at best How do you define "healthcare" exactly?
- free_bip 1y ago
  What you've presented is not an argument against public healthcare, it's actually an argument against poorly funded public healthcare. Conservative politicians in both of the countries you mentioned have been systematically, over the course of decades, been defunding their own government-run healthcare programs, specifically in the hopes that people like you will conclude that because of this the system is "broken" and that we must as a result switch to the private, profitable healthcare that said politicians are being paid to support. If you want to talk about properly funded public healthcare, there are plenty of good examples in the EU to look at.
  - readmodifywrite 1y ago
    My go to analogy is that conservatives will underfund the assembly of a car, deliver a car that only has two wheels that are both the wrong size, and then say "See? Cars will never work!" I think it is amazing that in a country as "exceptional" as the US, the answer to "Why can't we provide affordable and accessible healthcare to everyone?" is "We are going deport liberal scum like you".
- coldtea 1y ago
  >You say that like it's a capitalism problem, when some of the longest wait times and worst care occur in countries with government-run healthcare. That's still a capitalism problem. Neoliberal scum politicians (regardless of party) will underfund, sabotage and dismantle piece by piece, previously working fine government-run healthcare (and other infrastructure) to the benefit of private health interests. Besides "people die waiting for care in Canada" is only a valid argument if more people don't die NOT waiting for care because they can afford it in the US. Comparing the wait times of a system catering to everybody vs a system that excludes from even considering care a huge chunk of the population is cheating - even if we ignore the underfunding and neoliberal reforms issue.
- mcphage 1y ago
  > Lots of people die waiting for care in Canada, and the UK will regularly allow their healthcare system to get so bad people are dying in hallways That all happens in the US too—and worse—but also we pay more and get worse health care.
- ActorNightly 1y ago
  In the typical conservative fashion, you take very small issues (in terms of number of occurrences) and make it seem like they are huge. At this point, it should be pretty clear that privatization of healthcare just doesn't work that well in general.
esbranson 1y ago
Healthcare is a state responsibility. If an when eg the California Medi-Cal program reduces coverage, it will be because the California Democratic Party decided they don't want to pay for it.[1] When California causes anyone to lose coverage, you will have no idea (because it won't be published until LII gets hold of them years later). The fact that no one else will mention this outside of HN comments should be a wake up call about what you think you know. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/title-22/division-3/subdivision-1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/title-22/...

Death toll is also going to increase in 4 years with the BBB and people losing Medicaid/Medicare. A lot of people gonna discover that capitalism does in fact have a finite price on a human life.

guywithahat 1y ago

You say that like it's a capitalism problem, when some of the longest wait times and worst care occur in countries with government-run healthcare. Lots of people die waiting for care in Canada, and the UK will regularly allow their healthcare system to get so bad people are dying in hallways, and then some "hero" politician will bring in a bunch of money just to restart the cycle. The article itself places plenty of blame on medicare/medicaid.

triceratops 1y ago
They still have higher life expectancy and lower costs. It's easy to have lower wait times when you don't have to serve everyone.
- hackeraccount 1y ago
  The relationship between healthcare and life expectancy is sketchy at best. If you want to increase life expectancy you're better off touching on public health issues.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    > The relationship between healthcare and life expectancy is sketchy at best How do you define "healthcare" exactly?
free_bip 1y ago
What you've presented is not an argument against public healthcare, it's actually an argument against poorly funded public healthcare. Conservative politicians in both of the countries you mentioned have been systematically, over the course of decades, been defunding their own government-run healthcare programs, specifically in the hopes that people like you will conclude that because of this the system is "broken" and that we must as a result switch to the private, profitable healthcare that said politicians are being paid to support. If you want to talk about properly funded public healthcare, there are plenty of good examples in the EU to look at.
- readmodifywrite 1y ago
  My go to analogy is that conservatives will underfund the assembly of a car, deliver a car that only has two wheels that are both the wrong size, and then say "See? Cars will never work!" I think it is amazing that in a country as "exceptional" as the US, the answer to "Why can't we provide affordable and accessible healthcare to everyone?" is "We are going deport liberal scum like you".
coldtea 1y ago
>You say that like it's a capitalism problem, when some of the longest wait times and worst care occur in countries with government-run healthcare. That's still a capitalism problem. Neoliberal scum politicians (regardless of party) will underfund, sabotage and dismantle piece by piece, previously working fine government-run healthcare (and other infrastructure) to the benefit of private health interests. Besides "people die waiting for care in Canada" is only a valid argument if more people don't die NOT waiting for care because they can afford it in the US. Comparing the wait times of a system catering to everybody vs a system that excludes from even considering care a huge chunk of the population is cheating - even if we ignore the underfunding and neoliberal reforms issue.
mcphage 1y ago
> Lots of people die waiting for care in Canada, and the UK will regularly allow their healthcare system to get so bad people are dying in hallways That all happens in the US too—and worse—but also we pay more and get worse health care.
ActorNightly 1y ago
In the typical conservative fashion, you take very small issues (in terms of number of occurrences) and make it seem like they are huge. At this point, it should be pretty clear that privatization of healthcare just doesn't work that well in general.

esbranson 1y ago

Healthcare is a state responsibility. If an when eg the California Medi-Cal program reduces coverage, it will be because the California Democratic Party decided they don't want to pay for it.[1] When California causes anyone to lose coverage, you will have no idea (because it won't be published until LII gets hold of them years later). The fact that no one else will mention this outside of HN comments should be a wake up call about what you think you know. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/title-22/division-3/subdivision-1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/title-22/...