You must log in or # to comment.
It is my belief that every society benefits from free healthcare.
Wow, like youre not even considering billionaire pedophiles.
Won’t someone please think of the billionaires?
And the children its way easier to fuck if they all rely on grants from you for cancer treatment?
Bonus; no fatties once they start chemo!
FREE Healthcare in Mexico???
How will mom cross the US-Mexico line to buy a month of lifesaving medication for 1/10th the price now???
Same as always
<3
Mexico already has a constitutionally guaranteed right to healthcare:
Every person has the right to health protection. The law shall determine the bases and terms to access health services and shall establish the competence of the Federation and the Local Governments in regard to sanitation according to the item XVI in Article 73 of this Constitution.
In practice, this has meant a bare minimum level of health care is theoretically available to everyone, but most working people have private insurance on top of that, or see private doctors. For the poorest people it has often been very difficult to get the care they need, even if it’s theoretically available and constitutionally guaranteed. It’s also different from American / Canadian / European hospitals in that family is expected to play a major role doing things that in richer countries are done by nurses or orderlies.
IMO, universal healthcare only really works if the middle class / upper middle class and the poor are all in the same system. If the people can pay more and get better care, they’ll do it, and the system used by the poor will be underfunded. You can’t do much about the truly rich. They’ll always just fly to other countries. If this is just filling the gaps between the various reasons people can use the state system, it’s not going to help that much, even if that kind of fix is necessary.
Yes but if taxes are paying for the system then preventing tax exemption and building a competitive standard of care system heavily disincentivizes use of the private system.
If the private system is allowed to exist, it will always exist. Someone will find something that isn’t done quite as efficiently as the public medical system and charge privately for doing it. Anywhere the private system exists will be better than the public system by definition. Nobody would pay to use the private system if they could get their needs met for free in the public system.
Because of that, if there is a private system, some people will use it. Those same people will vote to try to limit the taxes they pay for the public system, because they’re not using that system. People who can pay for the private system are going to be the richer people, and so their decisions about where their tax money goes has more of an impact. So, eventually, the public system starts to crumble. When that happens, more people use the private system, and the problem gets worse.
Man, it must be nice living in a country that cares about its people. In America, its just the few, the proud, the
Marinesrich.70% of US voters want universal healthcare; 90% of Democrats and 50% of Independents.
Only Republican voters disagree, with something like 30% supporting. (all of these numbers are approximations there are many Gallup polls over the years).
I’m not a mathematician, but it appears to my untrained eye that 2/3 of Americans want Universal Healthcare. That’s a very solid majority.
Why can’t Ds and Rs manage to provide what the US voters want? Allow Republicans or anyone else to “opt out” of the system.
That’s a rhetorical question. bOtH pArTiEs aren’t interested in what their voters want.
Somehow, Israel can be financed for DECADES without the same level of voter approval.
50% of voters support Israel= billions of dollars every year
70% of voters support universal healthcare= no universal healthcare.
Kinda weird, ain’t it?
The US working class would have to mobilize serious strike action across the country to win universal healthcare. The capitalists don’t want their private property (companies, businesses) within the field of healthcare socialized. The working class can do it though. When organized and led by a revolutionary program and leadership, the working class can start to call the shots. All workers need to ditch the capitalist parties (dems and republicans) and support class independent parties and mobilize their power outside of the bourgeois political system.
There is no united front among the working class in the west. It’s because working class people who earn a middle income have been brainwashed to think they are “middle class” and thus think they are a separate group from the lower income workers. Like there are even white collar office workers who barely scrape by who think they are middle class and better than a plumber for example just because they don’t do manual labor and work at a big name corpo.
The working class is fractured simply by how the media and the politicians have been using the term middle class. The real middle class is the bourgeoisie. The rich and wealthy who aren’t part of the ruling class. If people don’t realize this they will never mobilize against their masters.
The US working class would have to mobilize serious strike action across the country to win universal healthcare.
Best we offer you is a “No Kings” protest/strike for just one day.
The health insurance lobby fights it and also employers don’t want it because then people can quit without worrying about losing their health care.
I doubt this. Most employees are low hourly salary, whether at Walmart or a local restaurant: they don’t offer healthcare so universal healthcare is a free benefit they don’t have to pay.
Even for professional jobs, I don’t see how this can be true. I can see how much my employer pays for my healthcare and I’m sure they’d prefer not to pay it, or be able to match more competitive pay packages
If they can hold your healthcare over you, you will do a lot more to make sure you don’t get fired, giving them more power over you. I guess they all assume that is more valuable than what they currently pay for health insurance.
I still don’t see how that makes sense
- you’re covered again as soon as you get your next job, and prior conditions are covered
- most employees are not actively receiving healthcare at any given time
- COBRA exists for those desperate enough, and is retroactive for the rest of us.
When I’m between jobs, I can usually choose not to have healthcare. If something happens I can choose to retroactively be covered by cobra. The day I get another job I’m covered again, even for pre-existing conditions. Sure there are some exceptions that don’t meet these, but I find it hard to believe it happens enough to justify as a way to trap employees.
Over the economy as a whole that would be such a tiny percentage compared the the savings these companies would get from not needing to pay healthcare at all, especially for hourly employees
As counter-examples, I’ve known several people who prefer to work on contract, but have gotten salary jobs temporarily for the sole purpose of health insurance. I’m positive these companies do not like the idea of going through the expense to hire a software engineer, pay software engineer salary, have them immediately maximize their benefits, then leave in 6-12 months when the health emergency is over
It’s never been more evident either.
Public opinion has “near-zero” impact on U.S. law
Your source is absolutely biased and wrong… we all know that public opinion has ZERO impact, this is madness!
Trump must have bribed these ivory-tower hipsters. I loathe them, with their soul patches and asses sticking out of their jeans and jaunty sideways baseball caps. Revolting
deleted by creator
Profit based health insurance is not only immoral, it’s fucking infuriating.
I’m not a mathematician, but it appears to my untrained eye that 2/3 of Americans want Universal Healthcare
What does that look like in implementation?
Medicare For All is generally unpopular among senior citizens. Medicare buy in is more appealing, but does little to curb price gouging in provision of care. State ownership/management of care facilities is easily subjected to scandals that cost political advocate their jobs (the VA being a classic modern example).
So what’s the plan?
Public support fractures if the questions are broken down into more detail. People have unfounded fears of new “death panels”, and founded fears of the government screwing up implementation (Canada has crazy wait times for many medical services - it’s an outlier among developed countries, but demonstrates the screw-up opportunity). People support new services if they are funded magically, but aren’t willing to support tax raises, even though the tax increases would be less than the savings from not paying for private health insurance.
The complexity - and partisan politicians being more than willing to weaponize confusion over details to divide us against each other - is the barrier.
I’m not an economist, but I bet if we cut the military budget to match that of ANY OTHER developed nation we could manage the healthcare costs.
We don’t require 8x the military budget of anywhere else on Earth
Want a compromise? Sure, let’s restrict our budget to the combined top competing THREE NATIONS.
(on checking a couple sources, the math even checks out, and we’d STILL have the most powerful military in the world)
It’s not that complex. One old-fashioned fireside chat will do it, it’s pretty obvious. We have DECADES of universal healthcare data and results, it’s not some new, radical, alien thing.
Just provide Americans with real data. Presidents don’t HAVE to be babbling idiots, there’s another way!
What really makes me chuckle is whenever someone tries to insist to me that Mexican men are chauvinists, and I have to remind them that not only did they elect a woman, but they elected a woman who is doing FDR shit and actually making people’s lives better.
I’m jealous. The closest we got was Bernie and both parties swift-boated him.
They are horribly chauvinistic.
Let’s play a game. The US elected Obama so they are not racist riiight?
Did more white people voted for Obama too? Because in Mexico, more men voted her than women did, relatively speaking. Also, our first black president was elected like 200 years ago.
I see the point you’re getting at, but this is too big of a debate for Saturday morning. :)
Have a great day.
Ladies and gentlemen, white US liberals when confronted with their shitty conservative positions. Saving this- it’s a such a perfect encapsulation.
Come on, now, be fair, I love dunking on liberals as much as the next leftist, but “Mexican men aren’t chauvinists” is hardly a conservative position, as leftists aren’t we supposed to make the argument that no people are a monolith?
Men are chauvinists. This is not somehow unique to Mexico.
“You cant be a bigot if you have a [POC/LGBTQ/whatever else] friend” is certainly a hallmark of conservative discourse
Landed and gentlemen, the troll who literally never makes a comment on this platform other than to try and demoralize a doomed society of millions of people. Torturing people like this is clearly all you ever think about. It’s pathetic and you desperately need mental help.
Agreed. And with sexism, the link is even weaker.
America is only 15% black so it at least suggests that a good chunk of the other 85% were not too racist to elect Obama.
But humanity is 52% women so in theory, women could elect a woman even if every man in the country was in fact chauvinist.
Obama refused to publicly acknowledge he was black until his last year of his second term.
Correct, the major reason she won the elections is because she was supported by her predecessor. (There was another female candidate too!)
We can’t ignore that since AMLO was in power he started a daily televised show that acts as state propaganda and one of his missions was to “continue the 4th transformation” as in “you need to vote for my party no matter who it is”.
(US citizens will relate to the propaganda right now with the White House putting up press conferences almost daily to convince people that they are winning while trying to police which press is ‘good’ and which is ‘bad’)
You can see the chauvinism in some of the criticisms coming to Claudia, I don’t agree with any of that misogynist bullshit but a lot of people are angry with her and the only thing they can say is “we won’t have another female president”.
Lol, yeah, like 70% approval rate, but I see your point. 30M people out of 100M voters are angry with her, I guess. I mean, they are a lot.
What is FDR?
Franklin D. Roosevelt, a US president who in the 1930’s ended the great depression by finally implementing some social welfare programs and reining in corporate power somewhat (like protecting the right to unionize) to prevent a socialist revolution.
God I love the Fediverse.
Feels weird, but I just love that people answer questions and aren’t jerks about it.
The chillness of this place has been pretty awesome, and I very much want to perpetuate that chillness and goodwill as best I can :)
Depends on the question.
Lemmy, why is windows so much better than Linux?
Windows 7 has much better compatibility with 2000’s era apps than Linux.
Really? I would have expected wine to be pretty good at them.
Because fuck you that’s why.
Oh look, an extra $20 in my bank account! Thanks…Not Microsoft
¿Por qué no los dos?
All accurate beyond debate except for the part about his social programs ending the depression. That point is debatable, the debate being that it was actually deficit spending to industrialize for WW2 that did it.
That’s fair, I guess FDR at least started the ball rolling toward fixing it before we entered the war.
Flying Death Robots
Flaming dick rubs
CIA backed fascist coup in 3…2…
They’ll just pay a drug lord to take her out and leave it be.
I have a feeling you are closer to the truth than you might imagine.
deleted by creator
it didn’t happen with Seguro Popular why would it be any different now?
Must be nice to have politicians who are trying to improve the lives of the people.
If only, if only
-the woodpecker sighs.
Somebody better put up a big fuckoff wall between the US and Mexico to keep the Americans out.
Maybe Trump was playing 1000D chess by making the US even more of a failed country and this was his plan to get Mexico to pay for the wall
She built a wall and made Americans pay for it! God damn socialists! /s
I think i have seen this storyline in a tv show before.
And paint the north side black… you know, to absorb all the sunlight that definitely shines on it…
Just a reminder that her predecessor removed this universal access when it was called “Seguro Popular” to create the INSABI that was later renamed “IMSS-Bienestar” and was ultimately integrated into the regular IMSS due to them cutting funds for it in 2025 (she was in charge at this point).
In any case, this barely helps anyone because even if we have ‘universal healthcare’ its quality is going down every year. There are no drugs (medicines) and not enough medical professionals to cover the demand and that has been a reality of anyone visiting an IMSS clinic.
As usual, be critical of any head of state.
I should move to Mexico.
This made me think about it. Seriously. If I could get about $2k for gas I could get to TJ.
I would cease to exist were I that far from Trader Joe’s.
TJ is short for Toe Job, a kinky sexual practice done by foot fetishist.
Please don’t, we are already gentrified enough
Mexico is hardly gentrified. There are some areas where there are a lot of immigrants, but the population is about 130 million, and less than 1% are foreign born. That’s significantly lower than both USA and Canada.
You obviously haven’t been to mexico city or any of the other tourist destinations in mexico. Its really bad, there are far too many “nomads” pricing out the locals.
I’ve been to Mexico City. It’s absolutely huge. There are probably neighbourhoods where “nomads” are pricing out the locals, but the vast majority of the city isn’t affected. What’s driving up rents in Mexico City is that it’s Mexico City. Most of the people moving there are Mexican.
As for other tourist destinations, yes in tourist destinations there are tourists! Wow. But, there’s a lot of places in Mexico that aren’t tourist destinations, or are destinations only for Mexican tourists. There are entire cities with millions of inhabitants where you’re very unlikely to ever see an American / nomad.
Since coming to power in 2024, Sheinbaum has sought to undo decades of damage caused by neoliberal policies, building on the work of the previous socialist government. She has pledged to build 1.8m new homes to tackle a housing shortage while strengthening tenants’ rights.
Last year she announced plans to shorten the work week from 48 hours to 40 hours, while increasing the minimum wage by 13%, continuing a policy of regular hikes championed by her predecessor and mentor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador since 2018.
“For years it was said that the minimum wage couldn’t go up,” she told a conference in December, “that it would cause inflation, that there would no longer be investment in the country, foreign investment.”
Despite that, following a cumulative minimum wage increase of 154% since 2018, “we are at a record level of foreign investment,” she added.
Since coming to power in 2024, Sheinbaum has sought to undo decades of damage caused by neoliberal policies, building on the work of the previous socialist government. She has pledged to build 1.8m new homes to tackle a housing shortage while strengthening tenants’ rights.
Meanwhile, when she was governing CDMX, she worked with Airbnb and it helped to gentrify even more sections for the city. There have been people forced out of homes they have lived in for decades due to this pressure.
Last year she announced plans to shorten the work week from 48 hours to 40 hours, while increasing the minimum wage by 13%, continuing a policy of regular hikes championed by her predecessor and mentor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador since 2018.
The people actually demanded this to be immediate, but they preferred to listen to business owners and are just reducing it 2 hours for each year, culminating to 40 hours in 2030.
They didn’t change anything related to how many days we need to work each week, so employers will try to squeeze these hours into 6-day workweeks anyway. She argued that this was not part of the historical demand for a 40 hour work-week.
Oh yeah and they EXTENDED the limit for extra-hours.
“For years it was said that the minimum wage couldn’t go up,” she told a conference in December, “that it would cause inflation, that there would no longer be investment in the country, foreign investment.”
Despite that, following a cumulative minimum wage increase of 154% since 2018, “we are at a record level of foreign investment,” she added.
Well that’s true, but at the same time the cost for food has nearly doubled
How did she work with AirBnB? Your link does not explain your claim. About the work week it’s still better, though not desirable for you the way it was passed as a law. The last point about doubling food prices is just false and shows your true colors. Food is more expensive of course because inflation is growing, and grows probably faster than the last few years, but doubled on food? Sure, pal.
Good for Mexico! Let’s hope USA is past invading their Latin American neighbours when they elect Socialist leaders, though…
Lmao, good one
You know what my ancestors are native origins to Mexico…
Random, but why is she called “socialist”? Is she going to ban capitalism (stock markets, public companies, private properties, bonds, etc.)? Or are we simply calling her socialist because she’s closer to European capitalism (balanced, kept in check, regulated) rather than US capitalism?
She is kind of a socialist, though. Not a communist.
Socialist is not a bad word. Only in the US it’s a bad word, because socialism means billionaires need to earn less, and the billionaires won’t allow that.
I never said it’s a bad word, but as someone from the east, socialist sounds a bit over-the-top for just healthcare, socialism (social policies) is part of any well balanced capitalism system for me.
Here in Europe elements like healthcare still fall under socialism.
Im not sure how the Mexican government operates, but typically it’s not all-or-nothing. Just because a socialist gets elected doesn’t mean they suddenly have the power to completely overturn a country and kick capitalism out. Such changes would require overwhelming majorities.
However, socialists would strive to implement those elements of their idealogies they can.
Agreed. But the context of the area needs to be accounted for. Socialist ideas compared to the old status quo.
Her party is democratic socialist, center left, not socialism, left.
There is a very long tradition of gradualist reformist socialism, that goes all the way back to the 2nd International.
Pretty sure she is socialist in the “when the government does things” sense, not the “will end capitalism” sense.
Im really confused.
Is she going to ban capitalism (stock markets, public companies, private properties, bonds, etc.)?
This is communism.
Socialist think that goverment funds should be used to help its people. You know… Society. Schools, healthcare, public infra. Things like that. Socialism does not mean banning private schools and hospitals, or that nobody could not own any land.
I think you misunderstood my “property” word in the context of socialism. Both in communism and socialism, owning properties for means of production, labor, etc. is generally restricted, but the difference here is that in socialism you can (generally) own your own housing. Yes, this includes banning private hospitals and private schools for profit
No it does not mean banning anything.
Goverment sets certain stantard of public healthcare and education, but if you want something outside of it, or for some reason, like long wait time for surgery etc. you can go to private sector.
…
EDIT: I was born in Soviet union and then grew up in social democracy. I’ve always found these conversations with Americans ridiculous. You don’t understand what you’re talking about, because you clearly mix different systems (ie. Social democracy instead of socialism as a state)
Being a socialist doesn’t mean you have to ban capitalism the moment you get power. Or at all. There are many ways to be socialist and do socialist policy. The overarching ideology is the belief we can do better than capitalism by distributing the resources we create according to amount of work and need, instead of profit maximization. How and how quickly we achieve that differs between different kinds of socialists. Sometimes dramatically.
Or at all
Socialism is defined by opposition to capitalism, if you don’t support eventually moving beyond Capitalism, you’re definitionally a liberal.
A socialist does support moves beyond capitalism, but in a representative democracy they wouldn’t have the power to do that outright. So it goes in small steps, starting with checks and regulations to prevent capitalism from going rampant (like it is in the US).
I love how nowadays words don’t have meanings anymore. Thank you, USA!
You’re not wrong but some render their opposition to capitalism by reducing the scope of the capitalist system. Something liberals tend not to do. Are all reformists committed to bringing it down to zero? Maybe, maybe not. I probably wouldn’t call a self-proclaimed socislist who spends their life reducing the capitalist part of their state a lib if they are okay with say 10% of the economy remaining capitalist.
I wish European capitalism was anywhere near what you seem to think. It’s just less worse… for now.
Than the PPE and its ilk.
The morena Party she is from could be defined as a “social democrat party” The state provides some social programs like healthcare, scholarships, help for single mothers, subsidized public transportation, and monetary help for the elderly.
I magine to people in highly capitalist countries these policies would be seen as socialism, but it feels more like a hybrid system. Most of the markets are capitalist with some light government regulation and some basic needs are socialized. I always find it weird how people draw these black and white distinctions today. I’d argue most governments of the world have hybrid systems in their economic management, even America with their welfare programs.
It makes a certain kind of sense to me. Making capitalism serve social goals is obviously a mix of philosophies but if capitalism is serving socialistic ends, isn’t socialism prioritized?
The essence of socialism, to me, is serving the social good as top priority. Not centrally managing the economy. Capitalism can be a “how” with socialism as the “why.”
I can’t find anything about her calling herself a socialist, but she’s definitely to the left of most European politicians. Of course she’s working from a less development and more rightwing starting point so her policies seem like common sense to Europeans, but equating her with folks like the SPD based on that would be wrong. You don’t really get this kind of anti-neoliberal, overt social democracy from mainstream European parties anymore.
Those Europeans you speak of call themselves socialist too, but they still with the capitalistic system and control the redistribution mechanisms bolted on.
