this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2026
854 points (99.7% liked)

World News

55505 readers
2799 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kommeavsted@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yes but if taxes are paying for the system then preventing tax exemption and building a competitive standard of care system heavily disincentivizes use of the private system.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

If the private system is allowed to exist, it will always exist. Someone will find something that isn't done quite as efficiently as the public medical system and charge privately for doing it. Anywhere the private system exists will be better than the public system by definition. Nobody would pay to use the private system if they could get their needs met for free in the public system.

Because of that, if there is a private system, some people will use it. Those same people will vote to try to limit the taxes they pay for the public system, because they're not using that system. People who can pay for the private system are going to be the richer people, and so their decisions about where their tax money goes has more of an impact. So, eventually, the public system starts to crumble. When that happens, more people use the private system, and the problem gets worse.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Nobody would pay to use the private system if they could get their needs met for free in the public system.

They might, if they thought there was an advantage to it. Like being seen more quickly, or getting a discount for something else.

[–] Kommeavsted@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Well you'd need a strategy to defeat that mechanism to develop a high standard universal care in the first place. On one hand, that makes the entire argument moot, but on the other hand the same or similar strategy aught to function both for development and maintenance of the system.

Maybe that strategy is widely nuanced in finding an answer to each of the thousands of concerns and organizing for change through protocol. Alternatively there's revolution and reboot.