1395
People like to create things
(media.piefed.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2025
1395 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
8127 readers
354 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If Republicans actually gave a shit about small businesses, they would pass Medicare for All yesterday. Healthcare being tied to employment (with orgs that offer health insurance as part of compensation) is one of the biggest barriers to entrepreneurship in the United States.
I think you need only look to countries with free healthcare to see that isn't the case.
Lack of healthcare is one of the biggest reasons I’ve never gone freelance for my programming work.
I'm a one person LLC. Health insurance is my biggest expense outside of my house payment. If you extrapolate over the last three years, those are the only two things that I've put more money in than retirement.
Seriously. Think of how many people would do something amazing if they could risk a gap in their employment without losing healthcare.
I disagree with the specific argument, but agree with the principle.
I think this is more palatable to Republicans:
Basically, this preserves the private medical care system, strips any leverage companies have over you, and ensures everyone can afford it. Since unemployed people get cash, they can choose to try starting a business instead of being a wage slave if they can't get a good job. The benefits would be low enough it would encourage people to work, but high enough that you're not screwed if you can't find work.
The goal should be for everyone to afford medical care regardless of means, not to have the government in control of medical care. I think this option is more palatable to those who want less government, and it also shouldn't impact taxes too much.
If you did this so many people would opt out of healthcare until their early 40s and just go to the emergency room for care more than they already do. The insurance pools would be lopsided and it would get even more expensive. And soo many less people would be doing any preventative care until things fall apart and they decide their insurance is worth it. Your also breaking the negotiation aspect of "insurance" by demanding them not be allowed to pool, meaning your insurance would cover less and less.
I am sure Republicans would love this plan, don't let RFK see it.
The free emergency care would need some limits of course. I'm thinking they'll merely get you stable (i.e. set bones, stop bleeding, etc), and once you're able to consent, they'll go through insurance or whatever. You would still very much want medical insurance.
But yes, people would go without, and I think having the option is good. If people can opt out, then insurance needs to have attractive prices. In addition, we'd need laws to ensure pricing is transparent so people can make informed decisions, instead of the current situation where you often don't know the cost until care has already been provided.
I'm not arguing it'll have ideal results in terms of health outcomes, only that it'll promote small business. If UBI or something similar is designed to cover housing, food, and healthcare, and healthcare is optional, that increases cash available to entrepreneurs ant reduces mandatory cists to employ people.
But if the goal was to help small businesses, wouldn't it make more sense to just go full public option? That way the small businesses don't have to stress and budget for the insurance nonsense.
That depends on what you think is more helpful, paying for medical care or providing more cash. And Republicans certainly won't go for both.