Huh??? I never even presented my own ethical position. We were talking about TECHNICALITIES here. Suddenly u’r accusing me of holding a shitty ethical position? Fuck right off.

I rlly try to be as polite as possible online. But jeez r u guys fkin stupid. We’re having a logical argument about technicalities for fuck’s sake. I said a thousand times that I support single payer universal healthcare. I love it, and I don’t want to lose it. I’m just pointing at the economic exchange here and how it is different from a non-universal multi payer healthcare system. That’s it. But NOOOOOOO how could I do that??? Ugh

Oh fuck right off. My political positions r my political positions because I’ve formed synthesis by evaluating both, thesis and antithesis. I consider myself a leftist. This however does not mean that I shouldn’t talk about antithesis for leftist theses. We’re not in a cult, uk.

What about the premiums though? Say the insurance premiums for x amount of coverage are 100 dollars. Doesn’t matter if I’m a billionaire or if I’m homeless. The premium stays the same.

In a single payer universal healthcare system however, the premium would be a percentage of my income (collected via taxes). Suddenly, the 100 dollars becomes hundreds of thousands of dollars. Therefore, from my perspective, I am “paying for someone else’s healthcare”. This is the technicality that I’m talking about.

Now of course, fuck my perspective because fuck billionaires. This however, is out of scope of the discussion.

Insurance premiums are flat. They don’t give a shit about your income. The insurance premium for a minimum wage worker and a billionaire would be the same for a given coverage.

When you make it universal and single payer, the billionaire has to pay more money for the same quality of healthcare compared to the minimum wage worker. Therefore, the billionaire is essentially subsidizing the minimum wage worker’s healthcare.

Now of course, you can argue about the ethics of private property, how the billionaire became a billionaire by wage theft and so on. The point is, within the capitalist system that we have, universal healthcare is still the rich person paying for the poor person’s healthcare. This is the technicality that I’m talking about.

Remember, I support universal single payer healthcare. I am merely talking about technicality here.

To address the emergency room situation, what happens when the person being admitted lacks any sort of insurance? If they can’t cough up money, then they go into debt. Their credit scores get screwed. Life becomes hell.

Insurance premiums aren’t decided by my income. They are decided by my probability of needing the coverage offered. Therefore, if I am rich, I end up paying a smaller percentage of my income on insurance premiums for the same coverage compared to a poor person.

Single payer universal healthcare makes healthcare more expensive for rich people and cheaper for poor people. I’m not saying that’s bad ofc.

Agreed. The ethical argument for universal healthcare triumphs everything else, assuming that we value human life equally.

Universal healthcare is that but cheaper because the government doesn’t have a profit incentive to price gouge.

Cheaper for everyone except higher income folk. They would benefit from a multi payer, private insurance system as they would end up paying less.

You’re already doing that with insurance premiums.

Insurance premiums aren’t decided based on my income. They’re decided based on the probability of me needing healthcare. Therefore, we kinda are not doing that right now. Universal, single payer healthcare would mean that healthcare expenditure would increase with my income. If I’m rich, I would be very sad.

But I’m not. Also, eat the rich. Healthcare is a human right. I am very happy with the universal healthcare that I have lol. I wouldn’t want it to go away at all. But again, I was talking about the technicality here.

We pay the middlemen, yes. I don’t see how we pay for other people’s healthcare. The private insurance that I’ve experienced takes many factors into account (age, quality of health, pre-existing conditions and so on). Thankfully because I’m both young, and don’t have pre-existing conditions, I pay less insurance premiums than a kid born with diabetes.

Remember, we’re talking about technicality here. We aren’t talking about ethics. Strictly from a money standpoint, we’re not paying for other people’s insurance.

True. I’m playing Devil’s advocate here. These r arguments that I’ve heard that make sense technically, but not ethically. I’m not saying that real life me would want to give up my universal healthcare lol. It’s a safety net that I absolutely want in my life (for selfish reasons as well)

Ok, so I completely support universal healthcare. However, it still is true that you are paying for “someone else’s healthcare”. How?

Let’s assume that there’s a flat tax percentage - 30% for all. (Actually most developed countries have progressive tax systems, but let’s ignore that for now). The more your income, the more tax you pay. Therefore, some people pay more tax than others. This means, that some people contribute more to fund the healthcare system compared to others.

Some people have pre-existing conditions. Some people may just be unhealthy due to bad lifestyle choices. I might be incredibly fit. The probability of me falling sick would be very less. If there were a multi payer healthcare system, then perhaps I might not need to spend much money on healthcare. A universal single payer system might be forcing me to pay more for others’ healthcare. Therefore, saying that I’m paying for someone else’s healthcare isn’t inaccurate.

That being said, healthcare is a human right. Every human, regardless of financial status deserves timely access to good healthcare. That’s why I support it.

If I pay you and then you pay someone else and then that person pays me the same amount we’ve increased the GDP without actually doing anything.

Wrong. This transfer of funds would be taxed in some form or the other. GST if u r a registered business. If u aren’t, it would come under personal income tax. Therefore, it would not be profitable for you to do this money exchange without expecting something in return. If you say that you simply enjoy seeing cash change hands, then u r generating value. U r getting pleasure in return of doing this experiment. Soooo that does come under GDP.

Now of course, GDP shouldn’t be the only metric you judge a country by. It’s clearly very flawed in measuring stuff like quality of life per person, wealth inequality and so on. However, it doesn’t mean that you should completely ditch it either. It certainly has its use case when trying to understand the economy of a country.

Ew so disgusting. Why would you even suggest something like that???

Awwww HI HAZEL!!! <333

I’m kinda getting the urge to lick between this guy’s front teeth just to see what it feels/tastes like.

The OG furry owo

Ouch

Oh such a distinguished gentleman…

For sure! <3

Also known as “sex simulator”.

Rated for boys 5-15.

/s

I like to think that he forgets, keeps trying and then makes a new post about it