159
Violent revolution is the only solution.
How about the US finally implement universal health-insurance?
It goes to show just how far down the fucking rabbit hole we are, that even sarcastic remarks like yours talk about "insurance" instead of "care."
My remark wasn't sarcastic.
Ultimately, the thing that is needed, the thing that inhibits care, and the thing the government ought to provide is insurance. A single payer system is ultimately insurance. That is ultimately what every other developed nation has.
People can't afford care when insurance denies the claim. Insurance is a publicly traded industry. Publicly traded companies are duty bound to maximize profit and minimize costs. The easiest way to do that is to deny claims.
If you think of it, the thing people are asking for is for the government to step in an pay the bill. They're not asking for the government to provide the actual care. That could actually politicize care. Cancer? Congress won't allow for doctors to treat beyond stage 2. Have a drug problem? That's jail, not treatment. Transgender? Get fucked. With universal insurance, pick your doctor and the government pays the claim. Doctor patient privilege would still exist with universal insurance.
Medical care is the one area you can rack up a bill with no ability to say no, and doctors are ethically bound to provide the care anyway. In a comma? You can't contract for medical care like you can with buying a car. You can rack up a ton of medical debt without even being awake to realize it.
My remark wasn’t sarcastic.
Yeah, sorry, that wasn't the right word. Maybe "cynical?"
If you think of it, the thing people are asking for is for the government to step in an pay the bill. They’re not asking for the government to provide the actual care.
I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that care actually is provided by the government directly in a bunch of countries, and that those systems work just fine (or at least much better than our system does here in the US). Why does there even need to be a bill (in the sense of keeping track of costs on a per-patient basis) to begin with?
Your assertion that government-provided care isn't even an option on the table is true, but that only goes to prove my point about us being terminally capitalism-pilled.
I could be wrong, but I’m under the impression that care actually is provided by the government directly in a bunch of countries, and that those systems work just fine (or at least much better than our system does here in the US).
Yes, but making "what care for which patient" fall under the government's determination in the US's system of government is a bad idea. Maybe if there was a slowing of the changeover after elections, but the US's political situation is too bipolar to implement that level of government control of care (see my examples from above).
Why does there even need to be a bill (in the sense of keeping track of costs on a per-patient basis) to begin with?
Because doctors need to pay their student loans? Because IV fluids need to be clean and put in bags? Because no single patient's care is standardizable? Maybe theres guidelines and standards of care, but biology is too messy for cookie-cutter care.
Why does there even need to be a bill (in the sense of keeping track of costs on a per-patient basis) to begin with?
Because doctors need to pay their student loans? Because IV fluids need to be clean and put in bags? Because no single patient's care is standardizable? Maybe theres guidelines and standards of care, but biology is too messy for cookie-cutter care.
Paying the doctor a salary doesn't require itemizing the costs by patient. All the government really needs to know is the total aggregate demand in order to employ the correct number of doctors, not which patient required what care.
I'd love to if we can manage to keep the Red Hands off/out of it. I just know they'll either grift off it or gut it or both.
So, better to have people die in bankruptcy as they are now because we can't ensure some people won't fuddy-duddy?
Oh no it's terrible now. I am for universal healthcare, or at the very least Medicare for all. I'm just very depressed about the way the Wrong Wing ruins everything all the time, decade after decade.
Medicare for all isn't universal health care?
"I took 7 courses in Marx and ive ignored them completely until they just punched me in the face"
How… how does the inverse Cramer apply here?
Marx failed to consider that one day Jim Cramer would agree with him.
Rich people are making money. In reverse that means they are not making lots of money.
So puts on rich people, calls on everybody else.
This means less rich people. More everybody else.
Which means rich became richer, taking from everybody else. As Cramer said, rich people are making lots of money; everybody else is struggling.
I choose to be optimistic. He sounds like Marx, and the end of capitalism is near
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2026
159 points (100.0% liked)
politics
31388 readers
2611 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS