• Synthead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I agree with a blend of socialism and capitalism, and in the right places. The US has healthcare in the same category as PlayStations. I don’t think this makes sense.

    We should believe in healthy, educated Americans as a common ground. And if you want to save up for a PlayStation, go for it.

    Ironically, since the government hasn’t fully stepped in to provide healthcare, coverage has moved to the private sector. So you still have socialist healthcare, just with shitty insurance companies trying to find ways to make billions of dollars from sick individuals.

    I think we can do better. Do you?

    • AquaTofana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is kinda where I’m at.

      I believe no American citizen (either natural born or immigrant) should have to work just to live a safe life.

      Everyone should have access to a safe, well kept, secure, climate controlled home with internet access, 3 meals a day, and Healthcare.

      After that, if people want to “work extra” and save up for legit luxuries and not necessities for life, then let them. Let the people who want to flaunt their wealth have their Lamborghini, while the rest of us are living comfortable with an Electric SUV if you have a family/Electric Coupe if alone(or even better. A walkable city!)

      • Synthead@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        To add to this, I can’t help but notice that pretty much all private sector businesses in control of quality of life have become extremely greedy. There was a time in the 70s where your home wasn’t that expensive, wages were comfortable, retirement was expected, and something like healthcare, with private insurance companies, was not expensive. Even hospital visits without insurance were still feasible.

        This makes the capitalism model appealing. We have the freedom to run a business, the government is small, regulations are light, and everyone gets along. It makes sense that old folks are out of touch with how rampantly expensive everything is, because they have their $20k home paid off, they got their social security and pension, and they’re on Medicare (which is ironically a social program). There is little reason to change anything for your personal benefit if you are already retired.

        However, the business model of making as much money as possible has caught up, and when you’re getting charged $70 for a Tylenol pill (but don’t worry, insurance covers it), you know there is a serious problem. “But my insurance covers it” is exactly what they want you to think to let this continue for a few more decades.

    • grilled_cheese_eater@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s no need for any privatization. We can simply have a market socialist economy that works on the principles of worker and customer owned companies.

      Basically, we can have utility companies (and that type of stuff) be owned equally by the citizens they serve, have all the other companies be heavily antitrust regulated and owned equaly by the workers of said companies through the worker cooperative corporate structure.

      Conflict of interest things (like healthcare) can simply be government programs.

      This way, we preserve the market and the Playstation while at the same time ensuring that Sony makes more moral choices and pays all their workers fairly.

      There’s no need for Uber rich people to even exist, functioning examples of worker cooperative companies exist (For example, Mondragon Group in Spain).

      I belive profit itself should be eliminated, we can do just fine without it.

      • Synthead@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I have a broken car and want to sell it to my neighbor, how can I do that if profit is eliminated?

        • grilled_cheese_eater@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I meant corporate profit. Selling your used car wouldn’t earn you any profit in the first place and even if it did, you would be your very own self employed employee.

          I meant profit as the money that instead of through fair wages for actual employees is distributed through dividends to shareholders.

          I thought everyone had the same definition of the word “profit”, but I guess not.

    • grilled_cheese_eater@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s no need for any privatization. We can simply have a market socialist economy that works on the principles of worker and customer owned companies.

      Basically, we can have utility companies (and that type of stuff) be owned equally by the citizens they serve, have all the other companies be heavily antitrust regulated and owned equaly by the workers of said companies through the worker cooperative corporate structure.

      Conflict of interest things (like healthcare) can simply be government programs.

      This way, we preserve the market and the Playstation while at the same time ensuring that Sony makes more moral choices and pays all their workers fairly.

      There’s no need for Uber rich people to even exist, functioning examples of worker cooperative companies exist (For example, Mondragon Group in Spain).

      I belive profit itself should be eliminated, we can do just fine without it.