Time to invade these communists /s
Why bother?
Just fund the cartels and tell them the President is after them.
The corporate-owned media must be scrambling with this one.
It is my belief that every society benefits from free healthcare.
Wow, like youre not even considering billionaire pedophiles.
Won’t someone please think of the billionaires?
And the children its way easier to fuck if they all rely on grants from you for cancer treatment?
Bonus; no fatties once they start chemo!
I have mixed feelings on this. If the entire world had access to free healthcare, chances are research and development would grind to a halt unless they also funded research and development. Taxpayers would need to be willing to pay a company hundreds of millions of dollars if they discovered a useful product.
…it can work in theory, but I’m not sure if it would work in a democracy. The average voter would demand that money be spent on more immediately useful services. If it did work, however, we would save the billions of dollars pharmaceutical companies spend on lawyers and marketing.
…it can work in theory, but I’m not sure if it would work in a democracy.
And yet many democracies have UHC… and publicly-funded research.
Social medicine only enhances research and development because the studies can be conducted in a wider manner.
As opposed to now, where companies copyright and patent their medications and sell them ultimately to…taxpayers who pay them billions of dollars a year in just out of pocket costs, let alone the scheme that is the American private insurance/healthcare system.
If taxpayers had to fund drug companies or research institutions for R&D without the insane middleman that is the private healthcare/insurance system, it would cost a fraction of what it does now.
On top of that, this assumes that people won’t do research for the good of society vs becoming filthy rich, which is a false assumption driven by Capitalist propaganda. Remember that the ultra wealthy CEOs and executives of these drug companies aren’t the ones doing any of the actual work or research. That is all done by scientists and engineers, who make a decent living, but none of them are incredibly rich from it, classic Capitalist exploitation at work.
Often times these drug companies (and the private equity firms that own them) don’t even primarily do R&D, they just purchase the patents and IP rights to drugs that are already on the market, and once they do that, they jack up the price often by hundreds of percent to increase their cashflow.
That cost gets sent to the insurance companies, which of course, they pass on to consumers, raising our healthcare prices year after year.
I want medical researchers, scientists, and engineers to make a good living, a very good living, their work literally saves and improves hundreds of millions of people’s lives worldwide. But you don’t need a CEO or executives, or private equity firms owning that space and making insane amounts of money, you just literally don’t.
There are millions of very smart and passionate people around the world who want to do this kind of work because they enjoy it, and they want to make a difference. Providing an open and rigorous academic and scientific structure to study and practice this is all you need. That already exists today, many medical breakthroughs came from publicially funded research institutes, which is the way it should be.
I also believe in free education, which includes research facilities.
You could fund the facilities, but how many people would be willing to get a doctorate in biological chemistry if the only available jobs were relatively low paying civil servants?
Most of the researchers in the pharmaceutical industry were employed as minimum wage workers during their six years in college. We would have to completely overhaul the incentive structure if we expected colleges to replace the for profit industry.
biological chemistry
fun fact: I have had a years-long interest into biochemistry since i was 12, and i want to study biology because of it, but i can’t; because i don’t have the time/money, because i need to get a job now to earn money, instead of spending another 6 years in school.
If the entire world had access to free healthcare, chances are research and development would grind to a halt unless they also funded research and development. Taxpayers would need to be willing to pay a company hundreds of millions of dollars if they discovered a useful product.
I don’t see why it would. A company would still invest in research if they thought they had a chance to sell it to the healthcare system, for example. It wouldn’t be the first nor last time something like that happened, and the latter case isn’t too different from how it works already.
Consider insulin, for example. Research into it and drugs for treatment of diabetes doesn’t happen exclusively in the US.
FREE Healthcare in Mexico???
How will mom cross the US-Mexico line to buy a month of lifesaving medication for 1/10th the price now???
Same as always
<3
Mexico already has a constitutionally guaranteed right to healthcare:
Every person has the right to health protection. The law shall determine the bases and terms to access health services and shall establish the competence of the Federation and the Local Governments in regard to sanitation according to the item XVI in Article 73 of this Constitution.
In practice, this has meant a bare minimum level of health care is theoretically available to everyone, but most working people have private insurance on top of that, or see private doctors. For the poorest people it has often been very difficult to get the care they need, even if it’s theoretically available and constitutionally guaranteed. It’s also different from American / Canadian / European hospitals in that family is expected to play a major role doing things that in richer countries are done by nurses or orderlies.
IMO, universal healthcare only really works if the middle class / upper middle class and the poor are all in the same system. If the people can pay more and get better care, they’ll do it, and the system used by the poor will be underfunded. You can’t do much about the truly rich. They’ll always just fly to other countries. If this is just filling the gaps between the various reasons people can use the state system, it’s not going to help that much, even if that kind of fix is necessary.
Any public service only works when there’s no privatization or outsourcing.
Public services, by definition, run at a loss; it’s not possible to profit from them monetarily. All benefits are intangible and derived from their social impact.
More innovation, more wealth production, higher productivity, less crime, better quality of life…The moment you start privatizing, they stop working, as the only ways to increase profits from a public service are by lowering salaries and giving worse service.
When a public utility or something is sold off, then yes, as soon as the privatization happens the service has to get shittier.
But, I don’t think it’s true that the moment there’s a private alternative the public version stops working. I think it’s often just that the public version starts to decay because it doesn’t get the investment it needs.
For example, if you sell the postal service to a private company, it’s going to get either more expensive, or not work as well, or both.
But, if you allow a private parcel delivery service to compete with the post office, for a while you can have both working fairly well. The private service might offer much faster delivery that you can track, while the post office offers slower delivery for a much lower price. For a while the two services can coexist, and people can choose which one they want based on their needs. But, over time you’ll get underinvestment in the public postal option. People will demand that it be run as a business and won’t take into account that it acts as a public service and does things that are unprofitable but good for society.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I meant to say that if the public system and private system were equal but you had to pay for the private system, nobody would use it. Sure, if the private system is faster then people will use it even if the public system is free.
In places that allow a mix of private and public, the private system basically finds some flaw in the public system and allows people to pay to bypass that flaw. Things like wait times are one of the main issues. But, it’s sometimes something like certain expensive tests being hard to get in the public system (CAT scans or something). In the public system they might only order those when they’re obviously needed. The private system can let you have one whenever you want, so if your doctor says “well… it could help, but it doesn’t meet the threshold the public system sets” some people will pay for it out of pocket. Or it can be more privacy, or more luxurious hospital rooms. Even if the treatment is otherwise identical, some people will pay for that.
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.
What really makes me chuckle is whenever someone tries to insist to me that Mexican men are chauvinists, and I have to remind them that not only did they elect a woman, but they elected a woman who is doing FDR shit and actually making people’s lives better.
I’m jealous. The closest we got was Bernie and both parties swift-boated him.
They are horribly chauvinistic.
Let’s play a game. The US elected Obama so they are not racist riiight?
I see the point you’re getting at, but this is too big of a debate for Saturday morning. :)
Have a great day.
Ladies and gentlemen, white US liberals when confronted with their shitty conservative positions. Saving this- it’s a such a perfect encapsulation.
Come on, now, be fair, I love dunking on liberals as much as the next leftist, but “Mexican men aren’t chauvinists” is hardly a conservative position, as leftists aren’t we supposed to make the argument that no people are a monolith?
Men are chauvinists. This is not somehow unique to Mexico.
chauvinism, excessive and unreasonable patriotism, similar to jingoism. The word is derived from the name of Nicolas Chauvin, a French soldier who, satisfied with the reward of military honours and a small pension, retained a simpleminded devotion to Napoleon. Chauvin came to typify the cult of the glorification of all things military that was popular after 1815 among the veterans of Napoleon’s armies. Later, chauvinism came to mean any kind of ultranationalism and was used generally to connote an undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs. The term chauvinism also may describe an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex, as in male chauvinism. Some animal-rights advocates have used the term to indicate a similar attitude on the part of human beings toward other species, as in “species chauvinism.”
According to this definition from Britannica, men, women, trans people, etc can also be chauvinist. Men can be male chauvinist, in that they think they are the “superior gender”. But that doesn’t exclude the concept of female chauvinism.
The concept of a “woman chauvinist” is irrelevant. It literally does not matter. What’s going to happen, are women going to take over society and force men into servitude? Stop them from leaving the house without an escort? Make them give up their careers? 🙄
In a society that was built by men, for men, men’s chauvinism is a problem and an unconscious bias they all carry with them from a very young age. There’s a lifetime of unlearning that men need to do to not be chauvinists. Any man who has gone through this process to rid themselves of their chauvinism has no problem with statements like “men are chauvinists” because they know it’s true.
“You cant be a bigot if you have a [POC/LGBTQ/whatever else] friend” is certainly a hallmark of conservative discourse
Landed and gentlemen, the troll who literally never makes a comment on this platform other than to try and demoralize a doomed society of millions of people. Torturing people like this is clearly all you ever think about. It’s pathetic and you desperately need mental help.
Did more white people voted for Obama too? Because in Mexico, more men voted her than women did, relatively speaking. Also, our first black president was elected like 200 years ago.
Agreed. And with sexism, the link is even weaker.
America is only 15% black so it at least suggests that a good chunk of the other 85% were not too racist to elect Obama.
But humanity is 52% women so in theory, women could elect a woman even if every man in the country was in fact chauvinist.
Obama refused to publicly acknowledge he was black until his last year of his second term.
Correct, the major reason she won the elections is because she was supported by her predecessor. (There was another female candidate too!)
We can’t ignore that since AMLO was in power he started a daily televised show that acts as state propaganda and one of his missions was to “continue the 4th transformation” as in “you need to vote for my party no matter who it is”.
(US citizens will relate to the propaganda right now with the White House putting up press conferences almost daily to convince people that they are winning while trying to police which press is ‘good’ and which is ‘bad’)
You can see the chauvinism in some of the criticisms coming to Claudia, I don’t agree with any of that misogynist bullshit but a lot of people are angry with her and the only thing they can say is “we won’t have another female president”.
Lol, yeah, like 70% approval rate, but I see your point. 30M people out of 100M voters are angry with her, I guess. I mean, they are a lot.
What is FDR?
Franklin D. Roosevelt, a US president who in the 1930’s ended the great depression by finally implementing some social welfare programs and reining in corporate power somewhat (like protecting the right to unionize) to prevent a socialist revolution.
implementing some social welfare programs … to prevent a socialist revolution.
The irony…
TL;DR he was just a pussy who implemented pro worker laws just to deter socialist USSR influence
God I love the Fediverse.
Feels weird, but I just love that people answer questions and aren’t jerks about it.
The chillness of this place has been pretty awesome, and I very much want to perpetuate that chillness and goodwill as best I can :)
Just don’t admit to using windows or mac LOL
Depends on the question.
Lemmy, why is windows so much better than Linux?
Windows 7 has much better compatibility with 2000’s era apps than Linux.
Really? I would have expected wine to be pretty good at them.
Because fuck you that’s why.
Oh look, an extra $20 in my bank account! Thanks…Not Microsoft
¿Por qué no los dos?
All accurate beyond debate except for the part about his social programs ending the depression. That point is debatable, the debate being that it was actually deficit spending to industrialize for WW2 that did it.
That’s fair, I guess FDR at least started the ball rolling toward fixing it before we entered the war.
Flying Death Robots
Flaming dick rubs
70% of US voters want universal healthcare; 90% of Democrats and 50% of Independents.
Only Republican voters disagree, with something like 30% supporting. (all of these numbers are approximations there are many Gallup polls over the years).
I’m not a mathematician, but it appears to my untrained eye that 2/3 of Americans want Universal Healthcare. That’s a very solid majority.
Why can’t Ds and Rs manage to provide what the US voters want? Allow Republicans or anyone else to “opt out” of the system.
That’s a rhetorical question. bOtH pArTiEs aren’t interested in what their voters want.
Somehow, Israel can be financed for DECADES without the same level of voter approval.
50% of voters support Israel= billions of dollars every year
70% of voters support universal healthcare= no universal healthcare.
Kinda weird, ain’t it?
What’s stopping individual states from doing it? Blue states like California and New York are bigger than some European countries that have it.
bOtH pArTiEs aren’t interested in what their voters want.
The US working class would have to mobilize serious strike action across the country to win universal healthcare. The capitalists don’t want their private property (companies, businesses) within the field of healthcare socialized. The working class can do it though. When organized and led by a revolutionary program and leadership, the working class can start to call the shots. All workers need to ditch the capitalist parties (dems and republicans) and support class independent parties and mobilize their power outside of the bourgeois political system.
mobilize serious strike action
Ain’t that illegal in most sates of the Land of the F®ee?
There is no united front among the working class in the west. It’s because working class people who earn a middle income have been brainwashed to think they are “middle class” and thus think they are a separate group from the lower income workers. Like there are even white collar office workers who barely scrape by who think they are middle class and better than a plumber for example just because they don’t do manual labor and work at a big name corpo.
The working class is fractured simply by how the media and the politicians have been using the term middle class. The real middle class is the bourgeoisie. The rich and wealthy who aren’t part of the ruling class. If people don’t realize this they will never mobilize against their masters.
The US working class would have to mobilize serious strike action across the country to win universal healthcare.
Best we offer you is a “No Kings” protest/strike for just one day.
The health insurance lobby fights it and also employers don’t want it because then people can quit without worrying about losing their health care.
I doubt this. Most employees are low hourly salary, whether at Walmart or a local restaurant: they don’t offer healthcare so universal healthcare is a free benefit they don’t have to pay.
Even for professional jobs, I don’t see how this can be true. I can see how much my employer pays for my healthcare and I’m sure they’d prefer not to pay it, or be able to match more competitive pay packages
If they can hold your healthcare over you, you will do a lot more to make sure you don’t get fired, giving them more power over you. I guess they all assume that is more valuable than what they currently pay for health insurance.
I still don’t see how that makes sense
- you’re covered again as soon as you get your next job, and prior conditions are covered
- most employees are not actively receiving healthcare at any given time
- COBRA exists for those desperate enough, and is retroactive for the rest of us.
When I’m between jobs, I can usually choose not to have healthcare. If something happens I can choose to retroactively be covered by cobra. The day I get another job I’m covered again, even for pre-existing conditions. Sure there are some exceptions that don’t meet these, but I find it hard to believe it happens enough to justify as a way to trap employees.
Over the economy as a whole that would be such a tiny percentage compared the the savings these companies would get from not needing to pay healthcare at all, especially for hourly employees
As counter-examples, I’ve known several people who prefer to work on contract, but have gotten salary jobs temporarily for the sole purpose of health insurance. I’m positive these companies do not like the idea of going through the expense to hire a software engineer, pay software engineer salary, have them immediately maximize their benefits, then leave in 6-12 months when the health emergency is over
It’s never been more evident either.
Public opinion has “near-zero” impact on U.S. law
Your source is absolutely biased and wrong… we all know that public opinion has ZERO impact, this is madness!
Trump must have bribed these ivory-tower hipsters. I loathe them, with their soul patches and asses sticking out of their jeans and jaunty sideways baseball caps. Revolting
deleted by creator
Profit based health insurance is not only immoral, it’s fucking infuriating.
Public support fractures if the questions are broken down into more detail. People have unfounded fears of new “death panels”, and founded fears of the government screwing up implementation (Canada has crazy wait times for many medical services - it’s an outlier among developed countries, but demonstrates the screw-up opportunity). People support new services if they are funded magically, but aren’t willing to support tax raises, even though the tax increases would be less than the savings from not paying for private health insurance.
The complexity - and partisan politicians being more than willing to weaponize confusion over details to divide us against each other - is the barrier.
People support new services if they are funded magically, but aren’t willing to support tax raises,
Maybe stop invading other countries and use that money for UHC instead.
I’m not an economist, but I bet if we cut the military budget to match that of ANY OTHER developed nation we could manage the healthcare costs.
We don’t require 8x the military budget of anywhere else on Earth
Want a compromise? Sure, let’s restrict our budget to the combined top competing THREE NATIONS.
(on checking a couple sources, the math even checks out, and we’d STILL have the most powerful military in the world)
It’s not that complex. One old-fashioned fireside chat will do it, it’s pretty obvious. We have DECADES of universal healthcare data and results, it’s not some new, radical, alien thing.
Just provide Americans with real data. Presidents don’t HAVE to be babbling idiots, there’s another way!
I’m not a mathematician, but it appears to my untrained eye that 2/3 of Americans want Universal Healthcare
What does that look like in implementation?
Medicare For All is generally unpopular among senior citizens. Medicare buy in is more appealing, but does little to curb price gouging in provision of care. State ownership/management of care facilities is easily subjected to scandals that cost political advocate their jobs (the VA being a classic modern example).
So what’s the plan?
CIA backed fascist coup in 3…2…
They’ll just pay a drug lord to take her out and leave it be.
I have a feeling you are closer to the truth than you might imagine.
deleted by creator
it didn’t happen with Seguro Popular why would it be any different now?
Somebody better put up a big fuckoff wall between the US and Mexico to keep the Americans out.
Maybe Trump was playing 1000D chess by making the US even more of a failed country and this was his plan to get Mexico to pay for the wall
She built a wall and made Americans pay for it! God damn socialists! /s
I think i have seen this storyline in a tv show before.
And paint the north side black… you know, to absorb all the sunlight that definitely shines on it…
Must be nice to have politicians who are trying to improve the lives of the people.
If only, if only
-the woodpecker sighs.
I should move to Mexico.
This made me think about it. Seriously. If I could get about $2k for gas I could get to TJ.
I would cease to exist were I that far from Trader Joe’s.
TJ is short for Toe Job, a kinky sexual practice done by foot fetishist.
Please don’t, we are already gentrified enough
Mexico is hardly gentrified. There are some areas where there are a lot of immigrants, but the population is about 130 million, and less than 1% are foreign born. That’s significantly lower than both USA and Canada.
You obviously haven’t been to mexico city or any of the other tourist destinations in mexico. Its really bad, there are far too many “nomads” pricing out the locals.
I’ve been to Mexico City. It’s absolutely huge. There are probably neighbourhoods where “nomads” are pricing out the locals, but the vast majority of the city isn’t affected. What’s driving up rents in Mexico City is that it’s Mexico City. Most of the people moving there are Mexican.
As for other tourist destinations, yes in tourist destinations there are tourists! Wow. But, there’s a lot of places in Mexico that aren’t tourist destinations, or are destinations only for Mexican tourists. There are entire cities with millions of inhabitants where you’re very unlikely to ever see an American / nomad.
Since coming to power in 2024, Sheinbaum has sought to undo decades of damage caused by neoliberal policies, building on the work of the previous socialist government. She has pledged to build 1.8m new homes to tackle a housing shortage while strengthening tenants’ rights.
Last year she announced plans to shorten the work week from 48 hours to 40 hours, while increasing the minimum wage by 13%, continuing a policy of regular hikes championed by her predecessor and mentor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador since 2018.
“For years it was said that the minimum wage couldn’t go up,” she told a conference in December, “that it would cause inflation, that there would no longer be investment in the country, foreign investment.”
Despite that, following a cumulative minimum wage increase of 154% since 2018, “we are at a record level of foreign investment,” she added.
Since coming to power in 2024, Sheinbaum has sought to undo decades of damage caused by neoliberal policies, building on the work of the previous socialist government. She has pledged to build 1.8m new homes to tackle a housing shortage while strengthening tenants’ rights.
Meanwhile, when she was governing CDMX, she worked with Airbnb and it helped to gentrify even more sections for the city. There have been people forced out of homes they have lived in for decades due to this pressure.
Last year she announced plans to shorten the work week from 48 hours to 40 hours, while increasing the minimum wage by 13%, continuing a policy of regular hikes championed by her predecessor and mentor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador since 2018.
The people actually demanded this to be immediate, but they preferred to listen to business owners and are just reducing it 2 hours for each year, culminating to 40 hours in 2030.
They didn’t change anything related to how many days we need to work each week, so employers will try to squeeze these hours into 6-day workweeks anyway. She argued that this was not part of the historical demand for a 40 hour work-week.
Oh yeah and they EXTENDED the limit for extra-hours.
“For years it was said that the minimum wage couldn’t go up,” she told a conference in December, “that it would cause inflation, that there would no longer be investment in the country, foreign investment.”
Despite that, following a cumulative minimum wage increase of 154% since 2018, “we are at a record level of foreign investment,” she added.
Well that’s true, but at the same time the cost for food has nearly doubled
How did she work with AirBnB? Your link does not explain your claim. About the work week it’s still better, though not desirable for you the way it was passed as a law. The last point about doubling food prices is just false and shows your true colors. Food is more expensive of course because inflation is growing, and grows probably faster than the last few years, but doubled on food? Sure, pal.
Good for Mexico! Let’s hope USA is past invading their Latin American neighbours when they elect Socialist leaders, though…
Lmao, good one
Man, it must be nice living in a country that cares about its people. In America, its just the few, the proud, the
Marinesrich.Just a reminder that her predecessor removed this universal access when it was called “Seguro Popular” to create the INSABI that was later renamed “IMSS-Bienestar” and was ultimately integrated into the regular IMSS due to them cutting funds for it in 2025 (she was in charge at this point).
In any case, this barely helps anyone because even if we have ‘universal healthcare’ its quality is going down every year. There are no drugs (medicines) and not enough medical professionals to cover the demand and that has been a reality of anyone visiting an IMSS clinic.
As usual, be critical of any head of state.
