this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
1529 points (98.6% liked)

196

16710 readers
4049 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Tweet is from around February 2022; I’m not visiting that cesspool to find the exact date.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zink@programming.dev 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You also have to consider that the healthcare is worth a lot more money to the billionaire than the homeless guy. Just like the roads and the protection of the armed forces worth more money to him. I’m sure the billionaire is a fan of price discrimination too, conveniently enough!

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sure! The homeless guy is very likely uninsured. They might die in the streets because of this. The billionaire on the other hand would get higher quality healthcare. What would not be happening though, is the billionaire paying for the homeless guy's healthcare.

Now of course, a consequence of that is the homeless man dying. Ethically, this is an incredibly shitty system. THAT'S why we need single payer universal healthcare. However, a consequence of that would be the rich paying for the poor people's healthcare.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah I didn’t comment on the “person A paying for person B” technicality because that’s always part of the deal. It happens with private insurance too. If the lowest paid worker at a company is healthy, and the billionaire CEO has a multitude of health problems, then if they’re using the same company insurance the poor person is paying for the rich person. It doesn’t matter that they’re paying the same premiums — the healthy poor person is getting less out than they paid in, and the sick rich person is getting more out than they paid in.