Sidechat icon
Join communities on Sidechat Download
Poor-quality, free healthcare is better than cutting-edge healthcare that only 85% can afford
upvote 21 downvote

default user profile icon
Anonymous 9w

“Poor quality” isn’t the best descriptor ngl but same

upvote 15 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 9w

People say if we have universal healthcare we’ll have long wait times like Britain or Canada… so why don’t we just raise the residency cap?

upvote 6 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 9w

Why would it be poor-quality? We would have the same tech, machinery, infrastructure, doctors, nurses, and medicines that we already do, it literally just changes the source of the money going to pay the hospital bill, it’s the same as swapping insurance from say Geico to Progressive for your car. Same car, same road, same danger

upvote 2 downvote
🃏
Anonymous 9w

N…no, this is just horrible ass logic

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 9w

85% seems pretty good lol

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 9w

We probably wouldn’t actually, we on average would have more medical infrastructure designed with speed in mind. The way our doctors work won’t change yk what I mean? It just changes where their money comes from. Plus, we already have some waiting lists as is so I doubt those are changing

upvote 1 downvote
🃏
Anonymous replying to -> #4 9w

They’re making a value judgement/utilitarian argument. It’s not really meant to argue the assumption, it’s more about arguing the conclusion. Their wording of it though is just extremely bad.

upvote 3 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #5 9w

Well, 84.6%. I’m bad at maths

post
upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 9w

Acceptable

upvote 1 downvote