People Twitter

8104 readers

2273 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

Mark NSFW content.
No doxxing people.
Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
No bullying or international politcs
Be excellent to each other.
Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

1315

People like to create things (media.piefed.world)

submitted 1 day ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@piefed.world to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

155 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I disagree with the specific argument, but agree with the principle.

I think this is more palatable to Republicans:

require businesses to offer the cash value of any benefits a business offers if the employee refuses it
remove any tax benefits employers get for offering benefits, as well as any group discounts
make emergency care free - ambulances, ER, airlifts, etc
pass a negative income tax in lieu of welfare programs and Social Security - get cash up to the poverty line for no income, and the benefits drop up to some multiple of the poverty line (NIT, similar impact as UBI)
expand medicare for those traditional insurance won't cover for a reasonable amount (basically caps medical costs, while keeping the market competitive)

Basically, this preserves the private medical care system, strips any leverage companies have over you, and ensures everyone can afford it. Since unemployed people get cash, they can choose to try starting a business instead of being a wage slave if they can't get a good job. The benefits would be low enough it would encourage people to work, but high enough that you're not screwed if you can't find work.

The goal should be for everyone to afford medical care regardless of means, not to have the government in control of medical care. I think this option is more palatable to those who want less government, and it also shouldn't impact taxes too much.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

require businesses to offer the cash value of any benefits a business offers if the employee refuses it

If you did this so many people would opt out of healthcare until their early 40s and just go to the emergency room for care more than they already do. The insurance pools would be lopsided and it would get even more expensive. And soo many less people would be doing any preventative care until things fall apart and they decide their insurance is worth it. Your also breaking the negotiation aspect of "insurance" by demanding them not be allowed to pool, meaning your insurance would cover less and less.

I am sure Republicans would love this plan, don't let RFK see it.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago

The free emergency care would need some limits of course. I'm thinking they'll merely get you stable (i.e. set bones, stop bleeding, etc), and once you're able to consent, they'll go through insurance or whatever. You would still very much want medical insurance.

But yes, people would go without, and I think having the option is good. If people can opt out, then insurance needs to have attractive prices. In addition, we'd need laws to ensure pricing is transparent so people can make informed decisions, instead of the current situation where you often don't know the cost until care has already been provided.

I'm not arguing it'll have ideal results in terms of health outcomes, only that it'll promote small business. If UBI or something similar is designed to cover housing, food, and healthcare, and healthcare is optional, that increases cash available to entrepreneurs ant reduces mandatory cists to employ people.