LennyGandolphini @LennyGandolphini@qoto.org
@freemo sure thanks buddy
@freemo splendid and glad to hear that.
Each time I read those rants I get a little aneurysm and I have yet to adapt to this whole federal concept
@hard_no what the actual fuck
@freemo splendid.
Also what is up with antisemitism on mastodon?
I mean I got a bunch of messed up stuff on my home.
I mean should I get used to "ironic" shitposting or it's just a small part of the whole ediverse?
@JSDorn @ReiRespecter @RoyalJohnny242
ah yes. Peak irony
@freemo yeah if it goes around and works for everybody it is good to me.
my problem usually with deregulation and reforms of healthcare policies is that in my personal national experience they tend towards an accumulation of funds in the private sector with no regards for other ppl.
After all, it is a sector that historically drives huge profits
@freemo yeah.
As long as the people's right to healthcare is ensured I'm cool with that
@freemo that was what I mean, welfare and taxes 😅 😂
@freemo everybody is free to do as they please, the important is having access to that quality.
I mean sure you can keep your money to spend it somewhere else if you want, life is yours.
As long as you dont refuse to provide the funds that grant other people the same choice.
@freemo it could be a language issue XD.
but yeah that kinda sums it up.
I meant that the coverage should be expanded to everybody, as a requirement for whatever system you adopt.
And from my perspective I'm fine with the public "Universal coverage" because there would be no inequality in services and relatively good salaries, and they would be financed through taxation, but it doesn't happen so we are at an empasse with an underfunded public service which sorta works.
@freemo there is plenty of space and interest for me to speak about alternative systems, but I for one care mostly about the universal coverage, as it is something that, altough with some problems, left none of my relatives without medical help (to reassure you my aunt received her surgery in time when she decided to move to a different hospital).
I mean, to me whatever system endorsed should prioritize giving everybody the best medical support, or at least not letting anybody die.
I like thinking about the japanese constitutional statement that any citizen is entitled to receive the healthcare services they desire, and that means that even uninsured people with no funds can still choose the best opportunity for their issues.
their main issue now is the ever increasing amount of people requiring medical aid for unnecessary reasons, and the agreed approach is to invest more on prevention policies rather than limiting access to uninsured people.
@freemo speaking from italy, I had a mixed experience with universal public healthcare and private one.
necessary disclaimer I am pro universal coverage, if not for quality reasons from an ethical point of view (as in nobody should be left without the right to be cured) and certain conditions made me spend quite some time in medical structures to get treatments but luckily still no surgery.
on a national level we had an ever decreasing budget for healthcare since the 90s because of deficit reasons (thus resources for welfare policies got slightly reduced each year to a point where they are extremely disfunctional) and for years most of the personnel formed in our universities seek job opportunities elsewhere rather than staying here.
Private healthcare now is a bizarre world.
the income inequality here is at an all time record and the private world adapted.
you either get specialized centers that offer you a bunch of high end solutions or you get family owned companies with cheap alternatives to get your stuff done, with often obsolete treatments.
but there is also a more shady form of enterprise, and that is inside the public sector network.
local doctors or primary doctors usually offer their own private services inside public hospitals,
so while they are regularly employed in those public structures they also suggest the wealthy patients to directly pay them in order to be moved to a different list and receive a way more rapid solution.
not only this sounds like some sort of bribery, but it's perfectly legal and the very same people who do this are often in the directive group of these structures so they have a saying in budget decisions for the different sectors.
also worth mentioning they can help decide how many people assume and usually who should be selected.
They even have some influence in universities and there are way too many cases of people passing over in lists because of connections with such people.
This whole stuff happened on a certain degree also before the budget cuts but on a way smaller scale and the main difference now is the availability of personnel for understuffed and underfunded public structures.
If any sort of further deregulation bill was passed now we would almost surely see an huge increase in those public centers and half of the hospitals getting turned in privately shared buildings with little to none coverage of the poor patients.
brief example of how the whole private list works in public structures:
my aunt got her cancer surgery delayed of a month because an other patient paid the doctor to get a skin mole removed, the burocracy did the rest.
some people say the budget cuts were necessary to save our economy, but we aren't thriving after the austerity measures and little to zero effort is getting done to fight wealth hoarders and widespread corruption in the public spheres.
Does that make me distrust my government? absolutely
Does that convince me that we should less government presence and shift to private providers?
Not a chance, they would be by all means the same people who are trying to sink our healthcare system, but with more business opportunities.
any problem with trannies?
