• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    While I entirely agree with all the benefits posted under here, we’d also be subject to the tyranny of regressives. That face eating leopard would feast on those red state seniors focussed on cutting health insurance to “those” people.

    Take education as an analogy. That’s mostly run by individual states, and there is a huge range of outcomes. Massachusetts is typically rated as or near the best education system but we pay for it. We recognize it as something valuable and as a good investment. Meanwhile many states/locales seem to see education as only a cost to be minimized. This is one of the reasons I live where I do. But if it were national, we’d lose that choice. One downside of universal healthcare would be that we’d no longer have the choice of investing in something better

    I work in tech and have better health insurance than most. I want the same for everyone, not less for everyone, even when that comes with voting for higher taxes

    • Buckshot@programming.dev
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Universal healthcare doesn’t mean you can’t pay for private healthcare. The UK has both. Jobs can often come with health insurance. It’s typically much cheaper as well because it doesn’t cover emergency services.