Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I'm not a libertarian, but from what I've seen of their positions on this, they don't think that it's possible in an effective way. There's two possible versions: the government pays for everything, or there's public and private health care. A lot of countries have both, which is probably the best option since driving out competition is going to make everything go to crap.
The problem is that there are some arrangements that simply can't work or the existing system would implode in the transition.
There are also a lot of people who don't want to pay because someone who refused to get insurance for years finally decided to sign up for public health care because they suddenly got a serious health problem. In some possible arrangements, it would be necessary to force people to have health insurance, which is its own rabbit hole.
Do they not realize that universal health care has been done successfully and at a lower cost than privatized healthcare, in many other countries? Seems like a weak argument when there's so much proof against it
I want there to be a viable public option that exists. The alternative would be to require that everyone get coverage.
There's a potential third option through cooperatively run hospitals.
medical practitioners competing with each other isn't how medicine advances
If there's no competition, then providers can just make up any price that they want and the government has to pay it.
When there's an entirely planned economy, there's no possibility for alternatives to be created.
when a huge multinational corporation worth more than the GDP of many nations organizes their resources using a plan decided by executives, and starts to vertically integrate to control their supply chain, and reaps the cost savings, that's just good capitalism.
No organization that's publicly owned could ever vertically integrate and make efficient use of resources, no, you need a dictatorship where the wealthiest have all the power for that kind of thing to work
The reason markets trend toward monopoly is that it's so ineffective
"The problem is that there are some arrangements that simply can’t work or the existing system would implode in the transition."
can you even cite a real world example of this or is this another runaway hypothetical?