• WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    10 days ago

    Imagine firefighters having to ask some insurance company to cover the water they need to put your house out.

    It literally used to be like that. Firefighters would refuse to put out the fire if you didn’t have evidence that your fire insurance covered them.

    • renegadespork@lemmy.jelliefrontier.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 days ago

      Yeah, I believe the motivation for moving to public fire departments wasn’t even a moral decision. Fire from uninsured burning buildings has an extremely high risk of spreading to an insured one, so putting out all fires minimizes risk to paid subscribers.

      My takeaway is: The only way to get American systems to care about the poor is if the rich might receive some collateral damage.

      https://www.firerescue1.com/fire-products/administration-billing/articles/how-todays-public-fire-departments-were-born-from-private-fire-brigades-M240qcm83TewqNsx/

      • codexarcanum@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        This is true of health care too and was a major driving factor behind the ACA. If you (if everyone) goes in for a yearly or twice yearly checkup and health screening, then dangerous conditions like cancer, disease, injury, and so on get caught sooner. The sooner you catch a problem, the easier and cheaper it is to fix.

        If you dont get regular screenings, then people find out they have cancer too late, usually after an emergency (an ER visit), when cost of care is very expensive. The ACA made the case that getting everyone more preventative care would reduce overall health costs.

        Another factor is that hospitals do help the uninsured, then pass those costs along to the insured. There are so many hidden costs in our system due to cruelty and inefficiency that would go away if we had universal health care. But the key difference is that the current system funnels all the benefits/value (all the money) into the hands of a small number of people, while actually universal healthcare spreads the benefits out over all of society.

        • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          Which makes the price tag of not having free healthcare all that more astronomical.

          How many people ignore pain, bumps, growths because they’re BARELY getting that rent paid every month? Go to the doctor? Shit if it’s a choice between having FOOD AND SHELTER and spending possibly quite a lot to get this funny new mark on your skin looked at guess what people are gonna choose?

          I’ve lived that shit. Fuck I’m living it now. I pretty badly need dental work done and if I keep ignoring it it’s probably gonna get badly infected, possibly quite dangerously. But it stopped hurting so bad (probably not a great sign) and everytime I check what my coverage and copays are I check my bank account and say “on maybe in a few months I can think about it”

          Private healthcare KILLS. On a massive scale. And it’s killing the poor/working class more by a long shot.