this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
386 points (98.7% liked)

Work Reform

16932 readers
428 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 30 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

The US loves war, they have had the war on terror, the war on drugs and now they have the war on immigration and freedom.

But sadly there has never been a war on sickness...

What would that look like, I mean you have the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, what about setting up a Public Health corps?

I am talking, military uniforms, armored mobile trauma centers, guns (every one in the US loves guns), emergency swat style units to quickly access unhealthy people, Public Health corps facilities where unhealthy or sick people get taken to and treated, tactical gear for doctors and nurses, picatinny rails on syringes, camo scrubs, tactical public vaccination vehicles (thinking like a jeep without a roof, fully loaded with doctors and nurses with air rifles firing vaccines, doing raids in anti vax areas.

Humm, I kinda want to see a movie like that, enforced mandatory public healthcare....

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 3 points 38 minutes ago* (last edited 38 minutes ago)

Considering the US tends to lose wars on nouns maybe it's a good thing they haven't tried yet. What you really want is for them to declare a forever war on health and people will get sick less often.

[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 7 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

So public health (which is different from universal health coverage or single payer system) was a thing and it did a whole lot of eugenics.

Ever wonder where baby contests come from?

In some places in North America you couldn't get married unless you had pre marital blood tests.

Can you imagine how the antivaxxer and skeptic community would handle that kind of stuff?

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 hour ago

I am well aware of governments doing a lot of shady shit in the name of public health.

My country, Sweden, for example, did a shit load of terrible stuff, among the most famous examples are:

  1. Forced sterilizations were a thing here from 1934 all the way up to 2013 with various criteria.
  2. The tooth decay experiments at Vipeholm is an absolutely awful thing to learn about.

I am also aware of the US government's tendency to use their population as test subjects without consent under the guise of public health.

While I knew all of that, I didn't think about it at the time of my comment, I was busy trying to find a fun name for the fictional force.

The US military won the war on sickness for themselves when they got the VA. I say we bring the fight to the general public.

[–] Wytch@lemmy.zip 13 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

A sizable and obnoxiously well-funded faction of Americans have been fighting New Deal reforms for almost a hundred years. Rural folks living on astro-turf for generations believing that bootstraps were not a joke. Sacrifices must be made on the altar of capitalism. Same reason MAHA wants people to die of preventable diseases. Thin the herd, cull the weak, fuck the poor, save humanity. "We can't afford it" has always been absolute horseshit. The willpower isn't there, corporate America needs its subsidies, failure is free money. They won't take their own advice and let the free market decide. Socialism for oligarchs, gambling for everyone else.

[–] protist@retrofed.com 1 points 21 minutes ago

What's crazy is how rural America was solidly behind much of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in the 1960s, but Civil Rights drove such a wedge that they followed George Wallace right out of the Democratic Party, and by the early 70s had fully aligned with Richard Nixon. The racism was/is that deep, that all those people just gave up everything else they supported politically to try to ensure the government continued to oppress minority groups.

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Will America continue to be a hyper-individualist/ everyone for themselves/hustle and grind/zero sum/I got mine so fuck you society? Or will we come together and try to make our nation a good place for us all to live the healthiest, happiest life possible? I guess we'll see. I can tell you, though, the former is not sustainable. The everyone for themselves/zero sum way requires violence to maintain, and it will end in violence.

[–] jdr@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Million, billion, trillion? What's the difference?

A factor of a thousand. The refecting pool is a silly distraction! Total bullshit, but you could renovate a million reflecting pools for the price of one useless war (assuming you don't value the lives or property of the people you're fighting).

[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 1 points 40 minutes ago

Yeah... innumeracy really isn't helping anybody here.

Confused at where the 1.5 trillion comes from, but maybe I'm just not following closely enough.

[–] Snazz@lemmy.world 8 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)
1,500,000,000,000
       16,000,000
    3,300,000,000

Zillions of dollars!

[–] 69420@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

It's wild that adding 16M and 3.3B to 1.5T is still just about 1.5T.

[–] phoenixarise@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

But the liberals piss money away, right? What a joke.

[–] wirebeads@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Then fucking do something about it instead of complaining about it on social media every second of every day.

For the strongest, most free nation on the planet, you Americans sure are a bunch of cowards when it comes to defending those freedoms you so claim to love so much.

You want change, force it. Trump is going for another term and you’ll all just sit there and complain on social media.

Fight.

[–] odd@scribe.disroot.org 3 points 1 hour ago

As I read your comment, I was preparing to argue with you. But that last sentence. That single word.

Yes, that is precisely what we need to do (and for many of us, to keep doing). Fight.

[–] rossman@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 hour ago

The US came close, but damn it feels like the craziest social experiment to have the average American vote for their best interest.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 6 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

I mean

Yeah

But there are a couple issues with this statement from a logical standpoint grounded in reality:

  1. It's estimated that Universal Healthcare would be cheaper, actually. Letting hospitals and insurance companies set prices drives up the margins, and almost all of the insurance industry is just needless overhead. It would cost negative money to make the US Government the pricemaker for medical care, and the US Government would spend less money than it currently does to maintain it.

  2. Even if that were not the case, HYPOTHETICALLY, if you just extrapolate the costs of Medicaid to cover everyone, you're looking at between tens of billions to hundreds of billions, not 3.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 12 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

ok but for 2 don't forget about the trillion. thats a lot of billions

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online -4 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah but you're not going to convince people to slash defense budget by a full trillion. It would be madness while China and Russia are acting more aggressive than that have in over 50 years.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 7 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

yeah but it would not even be close to a trillion and china and russia don't spend nearly what we do combined.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 2 points 2 hours ago

Well it's already not a Trillion, so yes. The $1.5 number is Trump's request for 2027. Even Republicans, as stupid as they are, are afraid of the banks letting them go default.

[–] Naich@piefed.world 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

If you cut 100 billion of it, you would still have 1.4 trillion to kill brown people with.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Well, no, you'd have about 890 Billion because the 1.5 Trillion is an imaginary figure that Trump made up. The largest parts of that are paychecks and maintenance.

[–] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago

To cover costs, we cannot compare the current system. The current, utterly bloated, most expensive system would not exist with universal healthcare.

[–] tburkhol@slrpnk.net 0 points 45 minutes ago

The US currently spends about $5 trillion on healthcare. About $1T of that goes through Medicare, another $0.9T through Medicaid, which leaves about $3T. Non-government spending is $1.6T through private insurance, $0.6T out of pocket, and $0.5T charities.

The "universal healthcare would be cheaper argument," which I believe, is based on shifting that $3T of private payments into government spending and bringing the ~85% efficiency of care by private insurers up to the 98% that Medicare claims. i.e.: eliminating roughly $400 B of insurance company profit. That still requires $2.5T revenue increase, which is about 50% of current revenue.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I think it's bad framing. Deficit spending on war should be called out on its own potential badness compared to tax paid single payer healthcare. It's easy to dismantle this kind of argument compared to explaining the actual plan in simple language. We will save everybody money and supercharge the economy with single payer healthcare by reducing how much you pay, how much your employer pays, and increasing overall quality. And we will pay for it at the same time. The only people who lose are middlemen and vultures whose income stream are dependent on the current system. And the provision of care will be responsive to what society wants (if folks actually take the responsibility to ensure it, which unfortunately Canada and the UK prove they often don't). Comparing that, a real plan, to just dumping your money into a pit with a useless war and wasteful governance shows that you're qualitatively different than the idiots who cannot pour piss out of a boot with the instructions on the heel.