this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
126 points (97.0% liked)

Asklemmy

53706 readers
740 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What's keeping people from demanding it?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bstix@feddit.dk 2 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

For people to demand anything you'll need a democracy. For people to want universal healthcare they need to understand that socializing the health cost is a benefit for the population.

Add the words together and you get social democracy.

In most countries this is what lead to universal healthcare. In most countries the social democracy parties were founded by labour unions.

Despite USA being first with labour unions, they never really succeeded, because they were violently struck down early on.

Anyway, it's that simple: Join a union, let the union establish a political party, let the party make universal healthcare. I know that seems very uphill, but it doesn't actually have to take centuries to do.

When the first unions were formed in Europe, the workers also expected it to be a multigenerational battle, and yet decided to try it in the vague hope that it might eventually benefit their grandchildren. However they were so successful that they achieved the goal within their own lifetime.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 hours ago

You're also missing the vital context that it was the soviet union being right next door, with their massive expansions in social safety nets, that forced western countries into capitulating to worker demands. It also misses that these safety nets in western countries are funded by imperialism, creating a domestic working class with class interests aligned with imperialism, rather than against it.

[–] puntinoblue@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago

The US the first with Labour Unions?

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 10 points 15 hours ago

Regulatory capture. The government is funded by the medical insurance companies. The people haven't demanded it because they've been told it's not an option. It's impossible, too expensive, a fantasy.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Capitalists control the political system of the US. Its not a democracy, it's a capitalist dictatorship.

What health-care systems it used to have, were only to quell decades of worker struggles fighting for equivalent health care systems the USSR was putting in place in the 1920s.

[–] onwardknave@lemmy.ml 7 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

That article and those linked within are a goldmine. Thank you for sharing.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 4 points 15 hours ago
[–] SilentKnight1369@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

Isreal, sorry not sorry. America sends isreal 300 billion every year as a donation... The get paid $600 to have a kid and get $1'800 for every child they have. We dont have free health car because they do... Just think about that for a minute.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Like most of these kinds of problems, the answer can be boiled down to a simple commonality: The people who stand to lose the most from things changing for the better are the same people who have the most power to influence the outcomes. The only thing that can counter that is a strong labor movement.

Now, there is a more complicated question to be asked about why US labor movements have been less successful than their European counterparts, but that I don’t have an easy answer for.

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

The second thing is actually pretty easy to answer. The same people from the first part of your answer have also been using their outsized power and influence to erode the power and influence of unions over time. Many actions taken by European unions would be considered illegal in America and met with violent state oppression. While Europe has maintained many of their labor rights from the turn of the 20th century, America's labor rights have been rolled back to almost before the new deal. Most unions barely have the right to strike, and even when they can that power is exceptionally limited. Basically any effective labor action in the US would require people to accept that they are breaking the law, and will likely die, sustain life altering injury, or go to jail for it. Since most Americans that would benefit from strong unions are living in oppressive poverty to begin with they either see the risks of illegal labor action as too large, or have been propagandized against it.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

Yeah, but why did it turn out differently like that? Europe surely had its own class of capitalists and other entrenched interests. They could have pushed for similar suppression measures.

Maybe it had something to do with the difference in fallout from WWII? Idk. I’m not super well read on this subject in particular, so I don’t know enough to do anything but speculate.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I feel the unionds themselves kinda lost their way in the 80's and only recovered in the millenium. Rather than pushing to lower worktime and expanding their ranks they focused more on exclusivity and bookoo overtime.

[–] folaht@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why didn't nazi Germany have universal healthcare?

What kept people from demanding it?

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 1 points 20 hours ago

.... because they did have it?

It wasn't universal at the time, covering only the poorest workers, but Germany was the first country to establish a social health care system in 1883. It didn't work very well during the war, but it was technically still there. Since the war, they gradually expanded it achieving universal coverage sometime in the 1980s.

[–] WandowsVista@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

the Hospital Corporation of America makes $70b+ a year

[–] puntinoblue@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 day ago

Follow the money: the current system makes more sense for private insurers, pharma, and large healthcare providers who all benefit from things staying as they are.

But it’s not just about corporations. The US also built its system around employer-based insurance back in World War II, and now healthcare is tied to your job. That creates risk: leaving your job can mean losing coverage, which naturally makes people more cautious and dependent on poor employment. This also makes people more cautious about starting up a business so the economy becomes controlled in the hands of a few - and so more oligarchic

There’s also a cultural angle. In the US, “freedom” is often seen as freedom from government involvement, even if that sometimes means less practical freedom (like being unable to change jobs easily), and the individual spending more on insurance than they would on taxes.

So it’s not one single reason - it’s money, history, and mindset all reinforcing each other.

Rigidity and social control also show up in other countries with strategies like high housing costs.

[–] SelfHigh5@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The powerful have convinced the masses that paying a single dime extra in taxes is just about the worst thing you could be forced to do, including whatever happened on that Island. So the common people are unable to reconcile that everyone paying higher taxes will make healthcare better for everyone. Normal people get to stay sick, poor, and rely on GoFundMe or die prematurely while the powerful laugh and count their money. It’s a fucking GRIFT.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 74 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The only opinion that matters for the government is the opinion of the 1%.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This isn’t any exaggeration: it has been demonstrated using statistical analysis

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 58 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Seriously? Because that's money flowing in the "wrong" direction, that is away from billionaires' pockets.

[–] nfreak@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 day ago

This is literally all there is to it, along with indentured servitude by tying insurance to employment on top of it. This country's fucked up healthcare system keeps the billionaires happy and the people stuck appeasing them.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 51 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (15 children)

Medicare for all and legal pot both have had an around 70% approval rate for about a decade now. The government simply doesnt care because those things do not make the right people rich. Studies have shown the US gov doesn't respond to its voters, it responds to its financiers. It honest to god never mattered what we thought.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] BigTuffAl@lemmy.zip 35 points 1 day ago

"why isn't the crumbling fascist imperial regime providing me healthcare?" is a question that answers itself OP

Because the politicians who could allow it are bribed by health insurance lobbyists to not allow it. There's a lot of money at stake for a relative few people, and they'll do anything to not risk it.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

In the USA, there is little corruption officially; that's only because bribery is legal. Billionaires, Corporations, Banks and even other nations like Saudi Arabia can "contribute" huge amounts of money without even revealing who they are.

Insurers, drug manufacturers and other interested parties "donate" many millions of dollars through these Super PACs and shell companies to keep things as they like them.

The voters are too busy juggling low-wage jobs to compete with the multi-generational wealth accumulators; on top of this, they pay more taxes in more ways than any other generation before.

Our representatives won't bite the hand that feeds them willingly, and are legally protected to continue doing so.

People's standard of living and life spans are shrinking as a result. See Citizens United, Super PACs, Panama Papers and Pandora Papers for more details.

There's so much, unions squashed, down to 10% of workforce and those are mostly police and government ironically. Check out Patriot Act if you wonder why there's so little organizing. The FED haha it never ends

[–] voaw@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Capitalism, severely lowered expectations, mainstream news media controlled by the billionaire class pumping out capitalist propaganda. People continuing to believe the Democratic Party wants to enact universal healthcare when all elected Dems really care about is staying in power, doing the bare minimum, and raking in the cash from their billionaire donors. People continuing to vote for Democrats based on that belief when they could be using their votes to vote in anti-capitalist candidates from the real left (Green Party, PSL, etc).

When Democrats are in charge of all of the levers of power, they say: “Darn there are all these rules we have to follow and the Republicans are obstructing us and won’t budge. Oh well, better luck next time 🤷‍♂️” while behind closed doors they’re listening to the health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies who offer them money and perks and special treatment and job offers in the industry once they’re out of office.

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you dare to struggle, you dare to win! If you dare not struggle, then damn it, you don't deserve to win! Fred Hampton

That is the problem, americans are weak, pacified and subservient.
Bad enough that they already resign in their 'normal' pathetic conditions (no healthcare, student debt,..)
Even the current regime can't motivat them.
Near fascist, and still nothing happens.
No strikes, big riots, etc...
They have their little walks with their edgy signs, complain on social media about the bad orange man or go to their lame No Kings meetings.
There the fake-left Uniparty politician promises to make it all better.
You have to stay nicely between the lines, violence is bad and has no place in a democracy, simply wait a few years and vote for me next time. Trust me!
And they do.

[–] quips@slrpnk.net 0 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Are you paying attention? We’ve broken the record for the largest protests in American history like 3 times in a row since trump came in, and we’re likely going to break it again on the 28th

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 day ago (4 children)

People can demand it, but that isn't how we could ever get it. The privatized healthcare system makes too much money and the left in the US Empire is only recently beginning to recover from the Red Scare and systematic dismantling by the state in the 20th century.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

because they gotta spend a literal trillion a year to kill brown people worldwide instead.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago

It's actually cheaper to do single payer healthcare, but because profit rules all the empire does this.

[–] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 13 points 1 day ago

Because of decades of lobbying by the for-profit healthcare industry.

load more comments
view more: next ›