• dohpaz42
      link
      fedilink
      English
      616 months ago

      Keep it simple and call it “healthcare”. No need to qualify it with anything.

      • @BossDj@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        356 months ago

        The ones who still think Obamacare and ACA are different things definitely need a catchy label and marketing if they’re gonna vote for it.

        Or just lie to them, their own leaders have learned it doesn’t matter what you tell them. Call it the “everyone gets a puppy” Bill or whatever. Then tell them they got a free puppy. They won’t know they didn’t.

        • @Scubus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          126 months ago

          This is exactly what we need to do. Its literally the only way to combat a populace that simply does not want to be educated. Just fuckin lie, then post your actual platform online. People who actually care will read it, everyone else will think that the dems are campaigning on eliminating the sun to cool the earth during the summer, and during the winter well just tow a new sun to orbit.

          • @BossDj@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            16 months ago

            That was a bit of hyperbole. But we could always say “if you didn’t get a free puppy, it’s because Trump and his Republicans hate puppies”

      • @Empricorn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        76 months ago

        Counter-point: calling it universal/single-payer distinguishes it from what we have now. Which I would argue isn’t actually healthcare, at least by modern standards in other countries…

        • @MrVilliam@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          76 months ago

          Yeah, we don’t have healthcare. We have profit-motivated health insurance. We pay in case we get injured or sick, and they only profit if they find a legitimate way to not cover us when we get injured or sick, so they try their damnedest to do that.

      • @Akasazh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        26 months ago

        It healthcare has a own risk (literal translation, I’m not sure about the English term) in which the first costs are out of pocket until you reach a certain amount (400-800 depending on your insurance package).

        So it’s not ‘free’ as you don’t pay for all of it, but you can’t go into crippling debt over medical payments.

        • queermunist she/her
          link
          fedilink
          English
          96 months ago

          The government doesn’t get money from taxes. It prints money, the taxes are how it removes money from circulation.

    • NaibofTabr
      link
      fedilink
      English
      206 months ago

      But that sounds like socialism! We can’t have that!

      • snooggums
        link
        fedilink
        English
        96 months ago

        That would be like having some kind of socially based security!

    • @Sc00ter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      106 months ago

      Thats the problem. The media and too much of the usa wouldnt accept “socialized healthcare” becuase that sounds like socialism and enough people arent educated enough to know what that really means

    • @credo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      46 months ago

      Insurance is already a socialized program- just a private one. Creating public health care simply removes the profit incentive.