Ask Lemmy

26875 readers

2113 users here now

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

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

351

If you are a Libertarian and hold liberty as your core value, why do you not believe in universal healthcare? Nothing impacts liberty more than sickness and death. (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

575 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yes, but universal basic income instead of universal healthcare has two issues as well:

You may not be able to afford expensive healthcare procedures, which may result in all ranges of bad consequences, from lost productivity to death. In either case, there's a big chance society loses a productive worker for no good reason, and for the person who couldn't get healthcare it's obviously super bad, too. All while this expense would be returned in the economy many times over if the person got recovered and continued working, and the person in question could keep living a fulfilling life.
Relying on private healthcare institutions means falling victim to the price-inefficient businesses, as a lot of your money goes to cover profits of the healthcare organization. When there is no public alternative, prices go through the roof. Even in the US, where there is some government oversight but no full-scale universal healthcare system, the prices for healthcare are insane. Thereby, you either have to hand people a fat UBI check and constantly increase it as companies drive up their appetites, putting more strain on the system than universal healthcare ever could, or let people not have decent healthcare, or control the healthcare institutions (which is not super libertarian), all while living with a reality that many people will not think of their medical needs or will genuinely have other strong priorities and will put money to something else, ending up shooting themselves - and the economy - in the foot.

I often hear criticisms of some "committee" deciding whether you're gonna get healthcare or not, like here. In an alternative when it is ruled by money, it's how much you earn that decides it. Someone in a critical condition might not receive help simply because they are poor. Someone will always be cut off, and it'd better be someone who needs the help the least or requires too much resources to help that could be better spent saving more people.

This is constantly ommitted by the haters of planned systems, which I think is very unjust.