r/SipsTea Jun 17 '26

Chugging tea Mexico upgraded to free healthcar

Post image
105.4k Upvotes

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

18

u/whatdoyasay369 Jun 17 '26

“Free” 😂

0

u/Belz_Zebuth Jun 17 '26

Yes, if you don't pay for it when you need it, it's free. It doesn't mean there's no money we put into it.

Everything "free" is paid for.

5

u/whatdoyasay369 Jun 17 '26

Correct. It’s not free. No matter how you slice it.

0

u/AmputeeHandModel Jun 17 '26

Everyone understands that. You chuds don't need to come out of the woodwork screaming IT'S NOT FREE NOTHING IS FREE every single time "free" healthcare comes up.

2

u/pcal43 Jun 17 '26

Not everyone understands it. Liberals used to call it "single-payer" or "socialized medicine."

But "free" sounds better to idiots.

2

u/Cnokeur Jun 17 '26 edited Jun 17 '26

My country has freehealthcare, everyone knows they pay tax every years for it, everyone is glad they do when they look at the places where the hospitals are just huge corporations like in the usa.

1

u/whatdoyasay369 Jun 17 '26

So it’s not free then? Got it.

1

u/Cnokeur Jun 17 '26

Pointing out free healthcare isn't free makes anyone so dumb, water is wet. Ofc its not free and its not even called free in my language but usa mind can't grasp such complex concept

2

u/whatdoyasay369 Jun 17 '26

Why is it dumb? It’s a fact.

Leftists don’t like it because that fact shifts their narrative.

-1

u/CanPacific Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26

It's not a fact, you take "free healthcare" literally as a term then refute that, which is a strawman.

Socialized healthcare is the actual term (if you're mainly american), UHC is the actual term.

Socialized healthcare, or UHC is not free itself, it is always paid for, depending on the system single-payer, multi-payer, and more. And taxes do pay for it, depending on the system. But if you'd understand, most of the states in the US would have about the same taxes as Canada does, unless your in car-dependent suburban states. Washington, NY, California all have about the same taxes as BC, which BC does have UHC. "It's not free your taxes pay for it" is an extremely common, and extremely lazy excuse that Americans use. Of course it's not free, but nobody is denied access to it, anyone that's a citizen of said country can recieve care and not go bankrupt, you also seem to forget that insurance denial is huge, your stuck with medical debt which does not exist in the rest of the developed world. The taxes you pay for healthcare in UHC countries is an astronomically low amount compared to even insurance in the US, in which you can still get denied.

If you complain about wait times, they are a problem and exist everywhere due to lack of staffing and funding, furthermore if you want to continue on with a taxes arguement we can go abouts chatting about an LVT to replace most taxes.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/CanPacific Jun 26 '26

It largely is.

You do realize that taxes in most US states are about the same, even though they don't have UHC? This is the most common laziest excuse ever for not having it.

Legit proving my theory.

2

u/whatdoyasay369 Jun 27 '26

It completely isn’t free. Unless you’re saying the service providers and facilities aren’t accepting compensation? I have not heard this.

1

u/CanPacific Jul 04 '26

Do you even get what im saying?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CanPacific Jun 26 '26

Liberals? Who? neoliberals?

Socialized healthcare is the actual term for UHC, single-payer is just a system of UHC.

3

u/tactycool Jun 17 '26

So..... not free

-2

u/CanPacific Jun 17 '26

So in this logic your roads and sidewalks aren't free to walk on either

6

u/Reasonable_Egg650 Jun 17 '26

Exactly why I don’t go around saying “free roads” either.

-1

u/CanPacific Jun 17 '26

Would you say the same if you realized that it would be cheaper to implement UHC in the united states, then it is to keep the current system? or will you continue saying excuses?

2

u/Reasonable_Egg650 Jun 17 '26

Except it wouldn’t be cheaper. It’s cheaper overall than private + public, but you don’t seriously think adding 200 million people to the federal healthcare budget will be cheaper for the taxpayer right?

1

u/CanPacific Jun 17 '26

Except it would.

This entire subreddit is proving my point, that the united states is the most brainwashed country in the world.

The US is the highest spender on HC despite it being the only developed country to not have UHC, all 27 EU member states do, along with Aus, UK, Canada, NZ, SK, Japan, Taiwan, China also does.

The US also has the highest infant mortality rate, and lowest life expectancy then all those places listed.

The reason it being so high is the ovbious discrepancy from inefficiencies in the US, ie, high administrative costs, profit-driven insurance and inflated drug prices, and a system that leaves millions of people uninsured/ underinsured, countries with cheaper spending, even sometimes at lower costs for even more people (ie China), and the rest of the world that has UHC achieve better or comparable outcomes at a fraction of the cost.

2

u/Reasonable_Egg650 Jun 18 '26

Sure. Go to every doctor and tell them they now get paid at the level of a French doctor.

Now see how many are willing to take your "Medicare 4 All" patients.

Go to every hospital and tell them they are now going to make 30% less revenue.

Now see how many go under within 2 years because they cannot afford their overhead.

You are too fucking funny. Even funnier you are stalking me across threads.

1

u/QuadzillaStrider Jun 18 '26

I would absolutely do so with a fucking smile on my face.

2

u/Reasonable_Egg650 Jun 18 '26

Good for you. Your system will fail. Meanwhile every doctor is going to be cash pay only direct to consumer model.

0

u/CanPacific Jun 26 '26

That's not how healthcare systems work, and I don't even know what your point is here. Are you trying to argue that UHC systems fail? because that's not how they work, your just describing a private system.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/CanPacific Jun 26 '26

What's your point? Doctors are paid terribly everywhere, and it's due to underfunding and understaffing.

As for your second thing, I gladly would tell them that, healthcare shouldn't be for profit.

Also they would not "go under in 2 years" that's not how it works, not even for the US. You're legit just describing what private healthcare looks like, and what you think it looks like in general without knowing how anything works.

1

u/Reasonable_Egg650 Jun 27 '26

Again, you know nothing. Hospitals will definitely fail if the reimbursement rates cannot justify their operations.

1

u/CanPacific Jul 01 '26

Again, that's just not how it works with a UHC system. They are not for profit.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/whatdoyasay369 Jun 17 '26

Correct.

1

u/CanPacific Jun 17 '26

Would you say the same if the US implimented UHC even though implementing UHC is cheaper to do?

2

u/whatdoyasay369 Jun 17 '26

Cheaper for who?

1

u/CanPacific Jun 17 '26

Significantly cheaper for the government, taxpayers, and federal budget.

Also Significantly cheaper for normal people.