• Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    You would have paid the same with Univeral Healthcare, but if you worked f9r a Connecticut insurance com0any you’d be out of work.

    • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Other countries with universal healthcare don’t pay nearly as much as Americans do and not every industry needs to be saved. Health insurance companies are not even the biggest insurance employer in Connecticut, the vast majority of people in Connecticut had a net loss in not getting single payer through.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        A lot of other countries own their entire health care structure. Hospitals, the whole lot. That isn’t part of Universal health care and is the big component to lower costs overall.

        • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Some, but a lot don’t. Even if that was the only way to reduce healthcare costs, it would be a great application for eminent domain. Luckily, everyone else has a better solution than ours.

          • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            The US is a big country in size and population. So, efforts in this area aren’t easy and very expensive. If you maintain everyone to have insurance, as with the ACA, you can lower about 1/3 of health care costs. Move to Universal Care, you’re looking at almost 2/3. Nationalize the entire Healthcare structure and you’ll see almost 3/3. I don’t really see that last one happening in my lifetime. It took a lot to convince people the ACA was good for them.

            • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              So we agree that Joe Lieberman voted against the interests of his constituents (the difference between the 1/3 and 2/3 of savings).

              • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                I agree that Joe was listening to those constituents who wanted to keep their jobs. And, if the public would have given democrats more of a majority in the Senate he wouldn’t have been an issue.

                • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  So 25k people vs 3 million? That’s not called listening to your constituents. He had been a democrat until a few years before this and broke ranks because of the Iraq war, so his disagreement on this issue came as a surprise to many Connecticut voters.