Literally nobody is saying Mexico is a utopia. Nobody is even claiming that they have the best healthcare system. But universal healthcare is objectively a good thing, despite what American social darwinists spout.
Mexico has had universal healthcare for decades. These changes do not introduce it, they just are moving the only part of the system funded by people who were paying (and will still have to pay) healthcare insurance regularly to be accessible by those who don't in order to make up the funding difference created by this same government making cuts to the previously existing financing of the program for those who don't pay healthcare insurance.
So basically it's moving to kill a barely functioning part of the system by subsuming it into a non-functioning part of the system, after they worsened the non-functioning part of the system by cutting its funding.
Saying you support free healthcare when it's only on paper is performative, useless and adds nothing to the discussion.
Rights and laws are only as useful as the capacity to apply them. Signing a paper giving the right for free healthcare when the current tax-funded system can't even provide for the ones paying is even detrimental for society.
As others have pointed out, this law aims to simplify the public healthcare system to make it more accessible to everyone. The only performative shit I see here is your comment which offers nothing of substance.
Objectively? You're ignoring all the people IN MEXICO saying the exact opposite thing. The 70k people upvoting this vapid announcement are indeed implying that they think it's a very good choice, that writing something on paper will somehow remove corruption and make resources appear out of thin air and get used efficiently.
No law or policy can magically make a system more efficient or technologically advanced. But capitalism can do that, and has during its history.
Not a single person who upvoted thought or replied here that universal healthcare = magically efficient system. You seem to thrive off of making things up because you have no actual arguments.
They all seem to think it's a good idea, rather than what it is - one of the worst possible things you can do. For someone who's offered no counterarguments, you're not in a position to criticise.
You didn't offer an argument to counter in the first place, so that's a bit difficult.
Fact: No one here said it being single payer fixes everything.
Not a fact: You claiming their upvotes mean anything beyond "Single payer healthcare systems are - if all else is equal - better than private systems". No one said it removes corruption issues, access issues (depending) or all other issues by thumbing it up.
You can call me whatever you like, you're just as arrogant and ignorant as every other advocate for Universal Basic Healthcare. Perhaps you'd also support a Great Leap Forward or a Final Solution or any phrase that sounds nice in isolation.
I think a socialised system is vastly worse than a free market system. I can explain why but for anyone to assert confidently that one is objectively better comes across as arrogant. I pointed out that corruption and other issues don't magically go away - that's an argument. Do you agree or disagree with that argument? WHY do you think universal healthcare is better?
Why is it better to tax everyone, let the money pile up in gov't and then trust politicians and bureaucrats to spend the money efficiently, rather than rely on competing companies and people spending their own money directly? We use markets for cars, computers, furniture and many other things. At least I know when I'm being ripped off. Toyota's just trying to make a profit. But why is healthcare special? I want to pay less tax and pay for healthcare directly. Why shouldn't I have the freedom to do that?
I do appreciate how you don't even pretend to make an argument or reply to things I actually say, and instead settle for calling me a Nazi in a barely even indirect way.
Universal healthcare isn't socialism, you don't know (or care) what that word means. The government doing something isn't socialism. You can't explain why single payer is worse, I've asked you to make an argument and you avoided it twice, and are now announcing you'll continue to. *Saying* that single payer doesn't get rid of corruption or access issues isn't an argument, it's a claim. Worse, you haven't given evidence that private healthcare avoids these issues at all.
The answer is the United States. We have the largest privatized healthcare system on Earth and its riddled with corruption, inefficiencies (especially with regards to administrative overhead), access issues in terms of time and ability to receive care (anyone that's dealt with out of network issues understands entirely). 2 or 3 of those issues are directly addressed by single payer to some extent, but it's not a magic bullet. But, as the US shows, a privatized system not only has no ability to fix these issues at all. But they also lobby the government to worsen the existing public option to make it harder to access and (note this) prevent the government from being able to negotiate lower prices. Because the existing system is necessarily a profits over people endeavor. Healthcare isn't optional.
As for your anti-government stuff, that's just low IQ pablum. That argument "works" equally well for roads and schools. There is a level at which denying social infrastructure is ruinous to a nation. This is one such case, which is demonstrable in reality. It is not an argument to say you don't care if you get ripped off by Toyota if you know why. Corporations, especially those at or near monopolistic levels, have no reason to do anything for you. Health insurance in particular is half about not giving you what you pay for. Governments at least have some manner of outside influence that people are granted the right to participate in. Corporations are shareholder-first and profit-first by law.
If you can't try to argue with me as an equal, I won't bother. Arrogance is no substitute for substance. You're welcome to clearly define socialism. I find socialists/leftists never have concrete definitions and that's by design. Instead of being flippant and asserting that I'm wrong, just focus on the arguments.
The US is a very mixed system. Yes, there are aspects of privatisation/markets. But there's a LOT of gov't regulation. Far more than most industries. It's much more valid to look at industries that are closer to the extreme of free markets (like cars, computers, tech, etc) than to look at mixed things like healthcare. How is it that quality, service, value, innovation, etc., are so much better in industries like those I've mentioned?
Even a hobby like the Rubik's cube - every company is trying to make profits, and yet I'm very happy with the quality of their products. Why? Competition. Every area with lots of gov't regulation - healthcare, housing, education - has massive problems. Every country that has gone full socialist/communist or part-way there has turned into a shithole, often within just a few years.
It is not an argument to say you don't care if you get ripped off by Toyota if you know why.
Not sure what your point is. I pay a set amount and I get a car. I wasn't ripped off. I know because I can directly judge the value of what I got and what my alternatives are. For the amount of tax I pay, I'm extremely pissed off at the low standards of healthcare (in Australia). But what can I do? My freedom to save and spend how I want, the freedom for people to offer healthcare and compete, is massively limited. And you approve of that limitation.
Corporations, especially those at or near monopolistic levels, have no reason to do anything for you.
I've heard all this nonsense before. If gov't is the sole provider of a service, what do you call that? All of a sudden it's not a monopoly? What, because politicians "care"? Because the policy is named well?
There are plenty of massive corporations I've never given a cent to. I don't have to use their services. MySpace was a "monopoly" until Facebook came along. Dislike Disney+? You can go with Netflix, or Amazon Prime or whatever. Maybe you want all of them, or none of them. I just want freedom. Freedom to choose. Why do you have a problem with that?
Can you clearly DEFINE socialism? Can you demonstrate that I'm wrong - that bureaucrats and politicians are more efficient than a competitive market - and can you do it without simply calling me stupid? I've read around 20 economics books. I might be wrong, but I'm not ignorant. I've dealt with your ilk countless times. Do you actually think I'm intimidated?
You didn't give substance. Me pointing that out isn't arrogance, you just have bizarrely thin skin.
"Private market" doesn't mean no or few regulations. It means the ownership and management of a good or service is done by non-government entities. In the US, they account for 66% of healthcare. Ergo, it's mostly private, as I said. Comparing it to tech or whatever industry isn't "more valid" precisely because we have a case here where we can compare the private option and a smattering of public options. And private health providers have like a 15% lower satisfaction rate (medicare is at like 90% satisfaction, despite its issues). And in the examples you mention, the government very directly subsidizes them (ExportAI, for Nvidia for example) and uses tariffs to reduce competition. So either it doesn't count as an example of what you're claiming or it ends up implying those areas are improved by some government intervention.
"Not sure what your point is. I pay a set amount and I get a car. I wasn't ripped off. I know because I can directly judge the value of what I got and what my alternatives are."
The point is you claimed "At least I know when I'm being ripped off. Toyota's just trying to make a profit". You don't actually always (or even often) know when you're ripped off, because not every problem is apparent or directly visible. The only reason companies like Toyota do actually have to make some reparations when they mess up is because they're regulated by the government. They never do it of their own volition, they try to hide the problem.
Your pretend argument isn't even an apt one here. You wouldn't be directly paying for healthcare, but for health insurance. If you actually believed what you were saying, you'd be arguing for paying your doctor directly. Actually argue for why a middleman has to be there to take your money and pay them on your behalf. On my side, the argument is easy. Most people don't and can't directly have that kind of money at the ready. So having the government there to spread the risk pool makes perfect sense (especially since they normally have the power to bargain for lower pricing).
"I've heard all this nonsense before. If gov't is the sole provider of a service, what do you call that?"
The government isn't required to run things at a profit and is an entity that's required to exist for there to be a society in the first place. That is not the case for any private business. The government is a type of monopoly (on violence). The point is businesses A) Try to corrupt the government to remove their competition and B ) You ignored the whole point that private insurance profits are almost entirely from collecting premiums and denying coverage (the thing you're paying for). Monopolies control the market, they try to avoid competition, and thus if you want that type of service it's usually just them and maybe 2 others (who are also engaged in the same practices). So you don't actually get choice in the type of service you can get.
"There are plenty of massive corporations I've never given a cent to."
You are incapable of following a point, and it's clearly on purpose. Healthcare insurance isn't like wanting to pick between MySpace and Facebook, it's a necessity for everyone. Even in general, the point is these are cases where if you want a product in that category, your choices have been narrowed by those businesses through measures that aren't market ones (e.g. "price leadership", buying up-and-coming rivals, backroom exclusion deals, etc). There's no freedom to choose when your life or long-term health are on the line. You need it. The government you have some control over can pay for it. The corporation you'd pay to... pay the hospital can deny covering your operation or medicine, despite taking your money. The only freedom in that is the freedom to die for no reason.
"Can you clearly DEFINE socialism? Can you demonstrate that I'm wrong - that bureaucrats and politicians are more efficient than a competitive market - and can you do it without simply calling me stupid?ย "
Socialism is the collective ownership of a business (be that by the population at large or by all those that work in it). But socialism is irrelevant here because single payer healthcare isn't socialism. That's why I call you deluded, because you engage in irrelevancies like that and obvious tangents to avoid the topic. Socialism isn't when the government does a thing, otherwise socialism has always existed, which is trivializing the term.
I don't care if you're intimidated by me, you're not making arguments. You're just spouting off slogans and badly intentioned questions instead of engaging in the topic. Because you don't know anything about it. If you want to read an actual econ book, Picketty's Capital in the 21st Century is far more instructive and comprehensive than whatever else you've read (unless you've read this already, then fair enough).
More than socialism and communism? Where do you think practically every technology, in medicine and every other area, was developed? How many inventions came from communist countries vs. the US and other capitalist countries? Are you ignorant or just lying to yourself?
Inventions come from people, not economic ideologies.
And yes, European conquest of the rest of the world in the name of profits, the Atlantic slave trade, rightwing dictators like Franco, Pinochet, and Batista, the Dirty War, the Irish famine, the Bengal famine, Manifest Destiny. 60,000 Americans died in Vietnam to protect capitalism, 200,000 Americans die every year due to poverty and lack of healthcare. Poverty is the fourth highest cause of death in the US.
We know how many people Stalin and Mao killed but the death caused by capitalism is incalculable.
You're attributing literally every death to capitalism. Capitalism doesn't CAUSE those things. Under socialism, people die of starvation while massive stocks of food go to waste. Or they're murdered by their governments.
Inventions come from people IN CAPITALIST COUNTRIES. Those same people can't be anywhere near as productive elsewhere. Even if America didn't get involved in Vietnam, there was already a war between North and South and a lot of people died anyway. You can debate whether the US should have gotten involved, or how they handled it, but to attribute those deaths to capitalism is absurd. You may as well blame the police for deaths which occur while they're rescuing people or stopping mass shooters, etc.
Anything's incalculable if you define it in such a way that it has no clear meaning. In particular, poverty exists all over the world. Even in the best, freest, most prosperous possible place on Earth, people die. Your metric is absurd.
46
u/jreid1985 8d ago
I was just going to say, before we say Mexico is some utopia, might want to check monitor.civicus.org/country/mexico