this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
1293 points (98.6% liked)
Work Reform
16733 readers
20 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:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No it doesn't. What would that even mean. Where do you draw the line between what is and isn't medical care. You could classify any country as either having universal healthcare coverage or no healthcare coverage at all under that definition.
Healthcare is whatever medical professionals deem medically necessary, that's where I would draw the line.
I'm no doctor, but dentistry and optometry is most certainly medically necessary (at least, this is my understanding of what medical professionals say!), and those are largely NOT covered under Medicare.
"Universal" is a superlative. It makes sense that it should mean everything, yes.
Universal is a synonym of all. I'm dying on this hill.
Even if people think it's just it 'covers' everyone, how much it covers is relevant. My hyperbolic example is that just because it covers everyone doesn't mean we should call it universal if it doesn't cover everything (or extremely little in the case of the US). I'm saying, if we want to call it universal, it should actually cover you for everything you might actually need for your healthcare.
That is objectively not the case. Medicare does not cover you for a bunch of things, and as discussed in a previous comment, makes you wait months and months for medically necessary but you-won't-die-today surgery, when we have more than enough wealth in this country to pay for it all.
Universal healthcare should cover all medically necessary healthcare in a timely fashion, private health should receive no subsidy, and you should be ineligible for public healthcare when on private, to make it compete (it won't, it'll immediately be a bad deal, which it is).
This isn't pie-in-the-sky requests, it's possible, it would just hurt the profits of private insurance companies, and private clinic owners who charge way above the rebate and make you pay out of pocket costs. We can and absolutely should create a fully public system, where people are employees of the health service.
Just pay medical staff properly so we don't lose anyone to overseas, and let's make it universal.
Medicare isn't that good, is the point I was trying to originally make.
Rant over ๐
Imma be real I'm not reading that. But whatever it is, it isn't "healthcare for everyone." And that feels like the neat and simple answer here as opposed to whatever you're doing.
Aight, healthcare for everyone (even if it is not equitable, and doesn't cover a bunch of stuff) can be your definition.
TL;DR for you: Medicare isn't nearly as good as it should and can be, and it's kinda sad people call it a "universal healthcare" system.
Also no one forced you to reply. Am I supposed to feel bad for writing out my reasoning in a medium length comment? Just seems like you want to say someone is wrong without actually justifying your position.
I gave a reason and it fit in a couple sentences. Less is more my guy, no need to get salty about it.