• Photuris@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    So long as both public and private exist, and the existence of private options doesn’t create incentives to erode funding of the public option (that’s the big danger), that’s fine.

    People who can afford it choosing private options frees up the queue for the public option. And they’re still funding the public option. Likewise, when the private option innovates, those innovations eventually make their way to the public space. A public option also forces the private facilities to keep costs relatively competitive, even as they do charge for premium service. They can’t go apeshit on charges like the American facilities do.

    Alas, private companies are incentivized to push for dismantling the public option, so it’s up to the people to protect it. A less-than-stellar option that’s available to all is definitely something worth having and protecting.

    • lost@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      15 days ago

      Yeah, but having to wait four years because you are poor doesn’t sound fair to me.

    • jabjoe@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      15 days ago

      Private health companies often use the same facilities and stuff as public health. It ends up basically paying to jump the queue. Also the private health companies take the low risk, glamorous stuff and leave the complex, high risk, unglamorous stuff to public health.

    • LordOfLocksley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 days ago

      Oh I completely agree. Private and public funding options should be working in harmony, but private must be prevented from overreaching into the public sector