this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
1579 points (98.6% liked)

Mildly Interesting

17562 readers
2 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 69 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (9 children)

It's hard as one having free (state paid) healthcare in EU, to imagine anything but just going to the doctor, and the doctor seeing to it, that you get the correct treatment.
No paperwork, no hassle, no bill.
I can't imagine why USA hasn't introduced something similar yet, but prefer all that bureaucracy that only makes the whole process way more expensive. Just to make sure some unemployed poor guy doesn't get free treatment!!
USA is a psychopathic society.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 53 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The US isn't a country.

It's a business dressed up as a country.

(More like 50 countries dressed up as a business dressed up as a country, but then even that gets more complicated)

[–] classic@fedia.io 6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

wtf do we call our society, anyhow? Just "capitalist"? Is that still the term?

[–] tinyVoltron@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] classic@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You know, I probably agree. We've, at the least, been headed in that direction. And, are likely about to plunge all the way in, a month from now

I looked up oligarchy on Wikipedia out of curiosity. Although it's debated, the U.S. is listed as an example of one

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I would have agreed on the "probably" until Musk basically bought his way into max corruption with a seat right next to the president.
Those 40 billion he has practically lost on Xitter, will most likely be gained already within the first year.
There is no doubt IMO that USA is now de-facto an oligarchy.

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 1 points 1 week ago

We were an oligarchy.

With the new administration, it would be more apt to call the US a plutocracy.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 week ago

Corporate dictatorship?

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Apart from also being an oligarchy, yes it is capitalist.
But here (Denmark) we would technically call it SUPER capitalist.
Because Denmark is also capitalist, but like the rest of EU, we balance capitalism with general interests of society. Where USA favor capitalism way more.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

No, it's not super, it's just capitalism. What you are describing in Denmark is a "mixed economy".

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is too close to sovereign citizen bullshit for me to take seriously.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Did you just compare my comment to those fucking idiots?

[–] classic@fedia.io 40 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"We" have been heavily propagandized into this. As a nation we're a masterclass in being brainwashed against our own interests

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Once upon a time, I thought the arrival of the internet would mean ordinary people would be better informed. But Trump being elected twice has proven me wrong.
It's not used as much for information as it is used for misinformation and propaganda.

In the 70's I thought better information would end religion, it's insane how quickly we are getting absolutely nowhere.

I have come to realize, that I'm VERY naive in some respects. Hard not to turn into a cynic.

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago

TBF the US is way less religious than we were in the 70s.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I can’t imagine why USA hasn’t introduced something similar yet, but prefer all that bureaucracy that only makes the whole process way more expensive. Just to make sure some unemployed poor guy doesn’t get free treatment!!

(concepts stolen from a very insightful reddit post from years ago) Nearly all modern conservative positions can be explained with two idea.

  • Society is zero-sum. For someone to gain something, someone else must lose something.
  • Class is defined and there should be no mobility for lower classes to ascend to higher classes in society.

So apply this to healthcare:

Most arguing against medical-treatment-for-all view it as zero-sum. So for most its not just because they don't want some unemployed poor guy getting free treatment, but rather, "if the unemployed poor guy gets free treatment, then treatment won't be available at some point in the future when I need it". This is silly of course.

For others arguing against medical-treatment-for-all, the suffering is the point. The unemployed poor guy should suffer because that is his station in life. A life of comfort is reserved for those of higher classes. They believe, alleviating his suffering would go against the class he's in and should in. This is, of course, also silly.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They also use the higher taxes argument. They lean on the decades of anti tax propaganda and tell people your taxes have to go up for it to work. Of course your taxes go up by less than you save on premiums and deductibles, but they just shout, "taxes are theft" over anyone pointing that out.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They also use the higher taxes argument. They lean on the decades of anti tax propaganda and tell people your taxes have to go up for it to work.

This is a rephrasing of their zero sum argument. As in "for the poor to gain healthcare, you, the middle class, must lose wealth".

[–] penquin@lemm.ee 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Wait until you find out that we actually get money deducted from our paychecks, a good some of money under "Medicare", that we don't get. We just pay for it on top of our monthly premiums for the insurance.

[–] curious_dolphin@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago

This made me laugh... and cry.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Of all the things to be angry at re: health insurance, this ain't it. You are not mad at Medicare existing. Like you do realize that 99% of people on this site want what you just described, but for all health care at all ages, right?

There are plenty of issues with Medicare, but what you just described is probably the easiest part of this whole situation for a European to understand due to its progressive nature.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I think it's pretty reasonable to be pissed about paying for something you can't use. Especially if they're in the same boat I am where their taxes are literally the difference between owning a home or not.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yeah, and my taxes shouldn't have to go toward paying for schools because I don't have kids right now, right? And what about libraries? I haven't been to one in decades, why should I pay for them? And roads... I don't currently have a car, so I should not have to contribute to maintaining roads and bridges.

Are we really going to have to go back to middle school and explain the social contract?

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago

So let the people who have extra to spare pay for the shit they're not using.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

It's pure lobbying.

That CEO's company made $22 billion in profit or something. Put just $1 billion of that in lobbying and you got a whole army of people manipulating the results in favor of the current status quo, and you'll have your $21 billion instead of $0.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Right, but what do you do when someone who works less, or isn't as talented or smart, as you gets the same or better healthcare!?

Edit: /s

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Same not better. And that's the thing, when equal healthcare is the norm, it becomes surprisingly normal. Nobody gives it a second thought.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

It's money. It's specifically a video of a white man with an expensive suit dancing in a rain of hundred dollar bills while the chorus to Money Money Money plays.

Politicians know the system is broke but they benefit from the money and have government sponsored top tier healthcare.

[–] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

Because the CEOs of healthcare companies keep pushing to lobby against anything like that which would hurt their profits