Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

That's not unaffordable, that's not afforded.

Choosing not to pay for something —when you pay for so much else— isn't the same thing as not being able to afford its upkeep. It's an active decision, not a passive imbalance.

There is a level of healthcare that we cannot afford, but pretending that we're there already when we know privatising elements is going to make it more expensive for everyone is not honest. There are enough variations on the theme to know what works, and that our current system —while starved, and poorly served by central political whimsy— still delivers the best value out of any healthcare system.

As I've said elsewhere, subsidised childcare, after-school programmes, and mental and social health care all network together to keep us working at our best. Not only are they cheaper when centralised, relieving the burden makes people happier. Having to choose between your health and your job is no way to live and this ethos of welfare, having your citizens' backs is a key aspect of high-tax society. Once you stop worrying about poor people with less, life is better.




What you're describing is a communist welfare system. Little incentive for individuals to work hard, you'll just increase the number of people totally dependent upon the system. Not sustainable.


If your definition of “communist welfare system” is a handful of services being subsidized than I’m afraid you’re already living in a communist dystopia.


> handful of services

Seems like a sizeable portion of someone's personal responsibilities.


I'm not. That's socialism. Investing in public services that make life and society better. It's many key components short of communism.




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: