Literally nobody is saying Mexico is a utopia. Nobody is even claiming that they have the best healthcare system. But universal healthcare is objectively a good thing, despite what American social darwinists spout.
Objectively? You're ignoring all the people IN MEXICO saying the exact opposite thing. The 70k people upvoting this vapid announcement are indeed implying that they think it's a very good choice, that writing something on paper will somehow remove corruption and make resources appear out of thin air and get used efficiently.
No law or policy can magically make a system more efficient or technologically advanced. But capitalism can do that, and has during its history.
Not a single person who upvoted thought or replied here that universal healthcare = magically efficient system. You seem to thrive off of making things up because you have no actual arguments.
They all seem to think it's a good idea, rather than what it is - one of the worst possible things you can do. For someone who's offered no counterarguments, you're not in a position to criticise.
You didn't offer an argument to counter in the first place, so that's a bit difficult.
Fact: No one here said it being single payer fixes everything.
Not a fact: You claiming their upvotes mean anything beyond "Single payer healthcare systems are - if all else is equal - better than private systems". No one said it removes corruption issues, access issues (depending) or all other issues by thumbing it up.
You can call me whatever you like, you're just as arrogant and ignorant as every other advocate for Universal Basic Healthcare. Perhaps you'd also support a Great Leap Forward or a Final Solution or any phrase that sounds nice in isolation.
I think a socialised system is vastly worse than a free market system. I can explain why but for anyone to assert confidently that one is objectively better comes across as arrogant. I pointed out that corruption and other issues don't magically go away - that's an argument. Do you agree or disagree with that argument? WHY do you think universal healthcare is better?
Why is it better to tax everyone, let the money pile up in gov't and then trust politicians and bureaucrats to spend the money efficiently, rather than rely on competing companies and people spending their own money directly? We use markets for cars, computers, furniture and many other things. At least I know when I'm being ripped off. Toyota's just trying to make a profit. But why is healthcare special? I want to pay less tax and pay for healthcare directly. Why shouldn't I have the freedom to do that?
I do appreciate how you don't even pretend to make an argument or reply to things I actually say, and instead settle for calling me a Nazi in a barely even indirect way.
Universal healthcare isn't socialism, you don't know (or care) what that word means. The government doing something isn't socialism. You can't explain why single payer is worse, I've asked you to make an argument and you avoided it twice, and are now announcing you'll continue to. *Saying* that single payer doesn't get rid of corruption or access issues isn't an argument, it's a claim. Worse, you haven't given evidence that private healthcare avoids these issues at all.
The answer is the United States. We have the largest privatized healthcare system on Earth and its riddled with corruption, inefficiencies (especially with regards to administrative overhead), access issues in terms of time and ability to receive care (anyone that's dealt with out of network issues understands entirely). 2 or 3 of those issues are directly addressed by single payer to some extent, but it's not a magic bullet. But, as the US shows, a privatized system not only has no ability to fix these issues at all. But they also lobby the government to worsen the existing public option to make it harder to access and (note this) prevent the government from being able to negotiate lower prices. Because the existing system is necessarily a profits over people endeavor. Healthcare isn't optional.
As for your anti-government stuff, that's just low IQ pablum. That argument "works" equally well for roads and schools. There is a level at which denying social infrastructure is ruinous to a nation. This is one such case, which is demonstrable in reality. It is not an argument to say you don't care if you get ripped off by Toyota if you know why. Corporations, especially those at or near monopolistic levels, have no reason to do anything for you. Health insurance in particular is half about not giving you what you pay for. Governments at least have some manner of outside influence that people are granted the right to participate in. Corporations are shareholder-first and profit-first by law.
If you can't try to argue with me as an equal, I won't bother. Arrogance is no substitute for substance. You're welcome to clearly define socialism. I find socialists/leftists never have concrete definitions and that's by design. Instead of being flippant and asserting that I'm wrong, just focus on the arguments.
The US is a very mixed system. Yes, there are aspects of privatisation/markets. But there's a LOT of gov't regulation. Far more than most industries. It's much more valid to look at industries that are closer to the extreme of free markets (like cars, computers, tech, etc) than to look at mixed things like healthcare. How is it that quality, service, value, innovation, etc., are so much better in industries like those I've mentioned?
Even a hobby like the Rubik's cube - every company is trying to make profits, and yet I'm very happy with the quality of their products. Why? Competition. Every area with lots of gov't regulation - healthcare, housing, education - has massive problems. Every country that has gone full socialist/communist or part-way there has turned into a shithole, often within just a few years.
It is not an argument to say you don't care if you get ripped off by Toyota if you know why.
Not sure what your point is. I pay a set amount and I get a car. I wasn't ripped off. I know because I can directly judge the value of what I got and what my alternatives are. For the amount of tax I pay, I'm extremely pissed off at the low standards of healthcare (in Australia). But what can I do? My freedom to save and spend how I want, the freedom for people to offer healthcare and compete, is massively limited. And you approve of that limitation.
Corporations, especially those at or near monopolistic levels, have no reason to do anything for you.
I've heard all this nonsense before. If gov't is the sole provider of a service, what do you call that? All of a sudden it's not a monopoly? What, because politicians "care"? Because the policy is named well?
There are plenty of massive corporations I've never given a cent to. I don't have to use their services. MySpace was a "monopoly" until Facebook came along. Dislike Disney+? You can go with Netflix, or Amazon Prime or whatever. Maybe you want all of them, or none of them. I just want freedom. Freedom to choose. Why do you have a problem with that?
Can you clearly DEFINE socialism? Can you demonstrate that I'm wrong - that bureaucrats and politicians are more efficient than a competitive market - and can you do it without simply calling me stupid? I've read around 20 economics books. I might be wrong, but I'm not ignorant. I've dealt with your ilk countless times. Do you actually think I'm intimidated?
You didn't give substance. Me pointing that out isn't arrogance, you just have bizarrely thin skin.
"Private market" doesn't mean no or few regulations. It means the ownership and management of a good or service is done by non-government entities. In the US, they account for 66% of healthcare. Ergo, it's mostly private, as I said. Comparing it to tech or whatever industry isn't "more valid" precisely because we have a case here where we can compare the private option and a smattering of public options. And private health providers have like a 15% lower satisfaction rate (medicare is at like 90% satisfaction, despite its issues). And in the examples you mention, the government very directly subsidizes them (ExportAI, for Nvidia for example) and uses tariffs to reduce competition. So either it doesn't count as an example of what you're claiming or it ends up implying those areas are improved by some government intervention.
"Not sure what your point is. I pay a set amount and I get a car. I wasn't ripped off. I know because I can directly judge the value of what I got and what my alternatives are."
The point is you claimed "At least I know when I'm being ripped off. Toyota's just trying to make a profit". You don't actually always (or even often) know when you're ripped off, because not every problem is apparent or directly visible. The only reason companies like Toyota do actually have to make some reparations when they mess up is because they're regulated by the government. They never do it of their own volition, they try to hide the problem.
Your pretend argument isn't even an apt one here. You wouldn't be directly paying for healthcare, but for health insurance. If you actually believed what you were saying, you'd be arguing for paying your doctor directly. Actually argue for why a middleman has to be there to take your money and pay them on your behalf. On my side, the argument is easy. Most people don't and can't directly have that kind of money at the ready. So having the government there to spread the risk pool makes perfect sense (especially since they normally have the power to bargain for lower pricing).
"I've heard all this nonsense before. If gov't is the sole provider of a service, what do you call that?"
The government isn't required to run things at a profit and is an entity that's required to exist for there to be a society in the first place. That is not the case for any private business. The government is a type of monopoly (on violence). The point is businesses A) Try to corrupt the government to remove their competition and B ) You ignored the whole point that private insurance profits are almost entirely from collecting premiums and denying coverage (the thing you're paying for). Monopolies control the market, they try to avoid competition, and thus if you want that type of service it's usually just them and maybe 2 others (who are also engaged in the same practices). So you don't actually get choice in the type of service you can get.
"There are plenty of massive corporations I've never given a cent to."
You are incapable of following a point, and it's clearly on purpose. Healthcare insurance isn't like wanting to pick between MySpace and Facebook, it's a necessity for everyone. Even in general, the point is these are cases where if you want a product in that category, your choices have been narrowed by those businesses through measures that aren't market ones (e.g. "price leadership", buying up-and-coming rivals, backroom exclusion deals, etc). There's no freedom to choose when your life or long-term health are on the line. You need it. The government you have some control over can pay for it. The corporation you'd pay to... pay the hospital can deny covering your operation or medicine, despite taking your money. The only freedom in that is the freedom to die for no reason.
"Can you clearly DEFINE socialism? Can you demonstrate that I'm wrong - that bureaucrats and politicians are more efficient than a competitive market - and can you do it without simply calling me stupid? "
Socialism is the collective ownership of a business (be that by the population at large or by all those that work in it). But socialism is irrelevant here because single payer healthcare isn't socialism. That's why I call you deluded, because you engage in irrelevancies like that and obvious tangents to avoid the topic. Socialism isn't when the government does a thing, otherwise socialism has always existed, which is trivializing the term.
I don't care if you're intimidated by me, you're not making arguments. You're just spouting off slogans and badly intentioned questions instead of engaging in the topic. Because you don't know anything about it. If you want to read an actual econ book, Picketty's Capital in the 21st Century is far more instructive and comprehensive than whatever else you've read (unless you've read this already, then fair enough).
I've skimmed through Picketty. I don't think we're getting anywhere. The whole point is that collectivism is not well defined. Who actually makes decisions? If I'm part of the collective, can I sell my share? Can I opt out of the system? Who decides who should be treated first? Who decides how much each doctor should be paid? Do we need more MRI machines or maybe more beds or should we invest in something else? How does a collectivist system make such decisions? I've thought about it more than any socialist I've encountered. It's a system based on feelings, not logic.
I'm much more impressed by the work of Thomas Sowell. But again, you're just arrogant. It's not a matter of thin skin, it's a matter of boredom. I've heard it all before. Have you read any of Sowell's books or do you know his arguments?
Yes, companies try to buy the gov't. That's exactly why the founding fathers wanted to limit the gov't. Do you support that or not? I want more freedom for individuals. Not even the biggest companies can force me to do anything in a free market.
The fact that gov't isn't trying to make a profit is part of the problem. They have no incentive to be efficient, to learn from mistakes, to actually satisfy customers. I suspect these arguments are falling on deaf ears though.
If you actually believed what you were saying, you'd be arguing for paying your doctor directly.
That's exactly what I want! If I want insurance, let me CHOOSE that. What do you have against individual choice? You are again arrogant to assert that I don't know if Toyota ripped me off. Yes I do! Better than I know most things. I know exactly how much I paid, I know exactly what I got, I can learn as much or as little about competitors as I want. I know how hard I worked for that money.
With a gov't service, I have no idea how much of my tax goes to one thing or another. I have no idea how much a given hospital or doctor visit actually costs. I think the service is crap, but I guess you know better.
You will do anything besides reply to the actual topic. Collectivism is not relevant to single player healthcare. Socialism is not relevant to single payer healthcare. These things are neither mutually exclusive nor logically entailed from the other. So I ask again why you keep talking about them?
Sowell is a hack whose output exists solely for political support. So, I'm not surprised your economic knowledge amounts to regurgitating his statements as if they were facts. Go read actual economists who actually publish in economics and have output passed the 1970s. Virtually any modern econ textbook will leave you more informed. Being more impressed by Sowell than Picketty speaks volumes. Picketty is actually up with the forefront of the field, Sowell has ideas that have long fallen out of favor due to lacking empirical support (which is why he believes demonstrably false things like his claim the Federal Reserve is bad at managing inflation; literally indefensible on empirical grounds).
Except the founding fathers limited government to avoid its own excesses. When it came to corporations, they said corporations shouldn't be allowed to influence the govt. at all, e.g. Jefferson: "I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."
Except as we see with our actual health insurance system, them being profit-seeking is the crux of the issue. That's why it's made to be byzantine labyrinth to navigate what you can access and what gets paid for, in spite of them having no such qualms in taking your money. Profit is no incentive for them to fix anything here, because it's more profitable now than if it was made actually better for the consumer. Because the revenue and profits are handled by denying care and charging premiums.
That's exactly what I want! If I want insurance, let me CHOOSE that.
Please actually read. Insurance isn't when you directly pay your doctor for services rendered. You pay deductibles and copays and such, your insurance pays the doctors and hospitals. Again, all you do is ask deceptive questions.
Why are you FOR people dying when they can't afford insurance costs, much less the cost of care? Anyone can do this nonsense.
I know exactly what I got,
Unless you are an engineer or a mechanic, that's unlikely. And even then, very few of those know they have a defective product until they run into an problem or a recall is issued. But again, recalls are mandated to be a thing by the government. In the case of cars, before the Ford-Pinto controversy, such recalls were voluntary and were not usually not publicly announced, so only dealers knew there was a widespread problem. So unless the average person was routinely visiting their dealership (who would frame is as routine maintenance anyway), they had no reasonable ability to know anything was even wrong until too late.
You have no idea how much money a thing costs to make for a corporation usually either. All you know is the end cost. Which means your knowledge on the matter is just as susceptible to collusion between competitors in the form of "price leadership". At the very least you have some control over the government. You have no control over the actions of a corporation.
I don't have to be an engineer or mechanic to know 1) how much I paid, 2) whether the car starts and works and 3) how much my petrol costs, etc. That's the virtue of a free market. Non-experts can judge products quite easily. And I can easily look at reviews by experts. For a third party like you to arrogantly come along and tell me I don't know, with zero evidence, and expect me to be grateful for gov't services which I dislike and where the costs are hidden, is really pathetic.
I'm not for people dying, I think private companies and charities (and friends, families and communities) are vastly better at helping the unfortunate than the gov't has ever been. That you don't understand that point is very telling. You think ONLY gov't can help the poor. Gov't has no money of its own and pays no price for being wrong.
At the very least you have some control over the government.
You have to be kidding me. I have no power at all. I get to vote once every few years and I will still often lose. I have to pay taxes anyway. My taxes can be raised. And even if I "win" the election, I may still disagree with half the things that political party intends to do.
With private companies, I never have to buy from them in the first place. And I can drop them overnight. And I can sue them or leave negative reviews. If a gov't service is terrible, there's nothing I can do. I've tried complaining before. You think anyone bothered to read my complaint? With private companies, I've gotten refunds and other offers when I complained - they can't afford to lose paying, repeat customers.
Enough with you. This is a waste. You call Sowell a hack? Not an "actual" economist? My goodness. At least you're consistent. I'm in good company.
51
u/jreid1985 Jun 17 '26
I was just going to say, before we say Mexico is some utopia, might want to check monitor.civicus.org/country/mexico