• Prox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    122
    ·
    21 days ago

    Somebody better put up a big fuckoff wall between the US and Mexico to keep the Americans out.

    • NotSteve_@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      20 days ago

      Maybe Trump was playing 1000D chess by making the US even more of a failed country and this was his plan to get Mexico to pay for the wall

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 days ago

    What really makes me chuckle is whenever someone tries to insist to me that Mexican men are chauvinists, and I have to remind them that not only did they elect a woman, but they elected a woman who is doing FDR shit and actually making people’s lives better.

    I’m jealous. The closest we got was Bernie and both parties swift-boated him.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 days ago

      They are horribly chauvinistic.

      Let’s play a game. The US elected Obama so they are not racist riiight?

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 days ago

        I see the point you’re getting at, but this is too big of a debate for Saturday morning. :)

        Have a great day.

        • WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          20 days ago

          Ladies and gentlemen, white US liberals when confronted with their shitty conservative positions. Saving this- it’s a such a perfect encapsulation.

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            20 days ago

            Landed and gentlemen, the troll who literally never makes a comment on this platform other than to try and demoralize a doomed society of millions of people. Torturing people like this is clearly all you ever think about. It’s pathetic and you desperately need mental help.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        21 days ago

        Agreed. And with sexism, the link is even weaker.

        America is only 15% black so it at least suggests that a good chunk of the other 85% were not too racist to elect Obama.

        But humanity is 52% women so in theory, women could elect a woman even if every man in the country was in fact chauvinist.

      • desertdruid@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        21 days ago

        Correct, the major reason she won the elections is because she was supported by her predecessor. (There was another female candidate too!)

        We can’t ignore that since AMLO was in power he started a daily televised show that acts as state propaganda and one of his missions was to “continue the 4th transformation” as in “you need to vote for my party no matter who it is”.

        (US citizens will relate to the propaganda right now with the White House putting up press conferences almost daily to convince people that they are winning while trying to police which press is ‘good’ and which is ‘bad’)

        You can see the chauvinism in some of the criticisms coming to Claudia, I don’t agree with any of that misogynist bullshit but a lot of people are angry with her and the only thing they can say is “we won’t have another female president”.

  • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    70% of US voters want universal healthcare; 90% of Democrats and 50% of Independents.

    Only Republican voters disagree, with something like 30% supporting. (all of these numbers are approximations there are many Gallup polls over the years).

    I’m not a mathematician, but it appears to my untrained eye that 2/3 of Americans want Universal Healthcare. That’s a very solid majority.

    Why can’t Ds and Rs manage to provide what the US voters want? Allow Republicans or anyone else to “opt out” of the system.

    That’s a rhetorical question. bOtH pArTiEs aren’t interested in what their voters want.

    Somehow, Israel can be financed for DECADES without the same level of voter approval.

    50% of voters support Israel= billions of dollars every year

    70% of voters support universal healthcare= no universal healthcare.

    Kinda weird, ain’t it?

    • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      21 days ago

      The health insurance lobby fights it and also employers don’t want it because then people can quit without worrying about losing their health care.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 days ago

        I doubt this. Most employees are low hourly salary, whether at Walmart or a local restaurant: they don’t offer healthcare so universal healthcare is a free benefit they don’t have to pay.

        Even for professional jobs, I don’t see how this can be true. I can see how much my employer pays for my healthcare and I’m sure they’d prefer not to pay it, or be able to match more competitive pay packages

        • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          21 days ago

          If they can hold your healthcare over you, you will do a lot more to make sure you don’t get fired, giving them more power over you. I guess they all assume that is more valuable than what they currently pay for health insurance.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            20 days ago

            I still don’t see how that makes sense

            • you’re covered again as soon as you get your next job, and prior conditions are covered
            • most employees are not actively receiving healthcare at any given time
            • COBRA exists for those desperate enough, and is retroactive for the rest of us.

            When I’m between jobs, I can usually choose not to have healthcare. If something happens I can choose to retroactively be covered by cobra. The day I get another job I’m covered again, even for pre-existing conditions. Sure there are some exceptions that don’t meet these, but I find it hard to believe it happens enough to justify as a way to trap employees.

            Over the economy as a whole that would be such a tiny percentage compared the the savings these companies would get from not needing to pay healthcare at all, especially for hourly employees

            As counter-examples, I’ve known several people who prefer to work on contract, but have gotten salary jobs temporarily for the sole purpose of health insurance. I’m positive these companies do not like the idea of going through the expense to hire a software engineer, pay software engineer salary, have them immediately maximize their benefits, then leave in 6-12 months when the health emergency is over

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 days ago

      I’m not a mathematician, but it appears to my untrained eye that 2/3 of Americans want Universal Healthcare

      What does that look like in implementation?

      Medicare For All is generally unpopular among senior citizens. Medicare buy in is more appealing, but does little to curb price gouging in provision of care. State ownership/management of care facilities is easily subjected to scandals that cost political advocate their jobs (the VA being a classic modern example).

      So what’s the plan?

    • matlag@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      Are you asking why the US democracy is flawed? -elected representative only care about what their donors want, not their voters -corporate owned medias decide what’s the “big” questions will be during a campaign and just forget about this until after the election

      Et voilà: “this was not one of the major concern for this election!”

    • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      What’s stopping individual states from doing it? Blue states like California and New York are bigger than some European countries that have it.

  • merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 days ago

    Mexico already has a constitutionally guaranteed right to healthcare:

    Every person has the right to health protection. The law shall determine the bases and terms to access health services and shall establish the competence of the Federation and the Local Governments in regard to sanitation according to the item XVI in Article 73 of this Constitution.

    In practice, this has meant a bare minimum level of health care is theoretically available to everyone, but most working people have private insurance on top of that, or see private doctors. For the poorest people it has often been very difficult to get the care they need, even if it’s theoretically available and constitutionally guaranteed. It’s also different from American / Canadian / European hospitals in that family is expected to play a major role doing things that in richer countries are done by nurses or orderlies.

    IMO, universal healthcare only really works if the middle class / upper middle class and the poor are all in the same system. If the people can pay more and get better care, they’ll do it, and the system used by the poor will be underfunded. You can’t do much about the truly rich. They’ll always just fly to other countries. If this is just filling the gaps between the various reasons people can use the state system, it’s not going to help that much, even if that kind of fix is necessary.

    • MithranArkanere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      20 days ago

      Any public service only works when there’s no privatization or outsourcing.
      Public services, by definition, run at a loss; it’s not possible to profit from them monetarily. All benefits are intangible and derived from their social impact.
      More innovation, more wealth production, higher productivity, less crime, better quality of life…

      The moment you start privatizing, they stop working, as the only ways to increase profits from a public service are by lowering salaries and giving worse service.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        When a public utility or something is sold off, then yes, as soon as the privatization happens the service has to get shittier.

        But, I don’t think it’s true that the moment there’s a private alternative the public version stops working. I think it’s often just that the public version starts to decay because it doesn’t get the investment it needs.

        For example, if you sell the postal service to a private company, it’s going to get either more expensive, or not work as well, or both.

        But, if you allow a private parcel delivery service to compete with the post office, for a while you can have both working fairly well. The private service might offer much faster delivery that you can track, while the post office offers slower delivery for a much lower price. For a while the two services can coexist, and people can choose which one they want based on their needs. But, over time you’ll get underinvestment in the public postal option. People will demand that it be run as a business and won’t take into account that it acts as a public service and does things that are unprofitable but good for society.

  • Godric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    20 days ago

    FREE Healthcare in Mexico???

    How will mom cross the US-Mexico line to buy a month of lifesaving medication for 1/10th the price now???

  • desertdruid@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    21 days ago

    Just a reminder that her predecessor removed this universal access when it was called “Seguro Popular” to create the INSABI that was later renamed “IMSS-Bienestar” and was ultimately integrated into the regular IMSS due to them cutting funds for it in 2025 (she was in charge at this point).

    In any case, this barely helps anyone because even if we have ‘universal healthcare’ its quality is going down every year. There are no drugs (medicines) and not enough medical professionals to cover the demand and that has been a reality of anyone visiting an IMSS clinic.

    As usual, be critical of any head of state.

  • Sunflier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    Man, it must be nice living in a country that cares about its people. In America, its just the few, the proud, the Marines rich.