• Mighty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    can i replace “affordable” with “free” please? these are human basic needs. just give it to me.

    • BaardFigur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Norwegian here. Healthcare isn’t entirely free here, but it sure is affordable. I’m not sure if entirely free is a thing to strive for. A minor cost helps upper the bar slightly, so people don’t annoy the doctors office with stupid minor stuff (which is already happening).

      Higher education is also not entirely free, just really cheap. But as long as you get a stipend (everbody that finish their study does), the state end up giving you more money than you spend. So yes, free higher education is great, I feel sorry for americans.

      Affordable housing: should that be free? I agree it should be affordable though, but how can that be achieved? It’s basically the free market deciding

        • BaardFigur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          While the current state of capitalism is sort of broken (doing all kinds of evil stuff in the name of shareholder profit), doesn’t make all elements of it broken.

          I’m pretty happy to be able to own personal stuff for example. Like a house. Or smaller stuff, like a phone. There also needs to be some kind of mechanism actually encouraging people to contribute to society.

          • Mighty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Capitalism isn’t broken, you’re right. The misery of 90-95% if society is expected under capitalism. It’s not a sign of capitalism being broken but for it working as intended.

    • Rolder@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Doesn’t have to. Just need laws and stuff that say the owner of single family homes have to be single families (and not big corporations or landlords)

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        I think a lot of families can’t afford a home. This law would cause a huge amount of homelessness and lead to the suffering if many many people.

        • Rolder@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          In my mind the prices would go down if you don’t have big hedge funds and shit to compete with.

          • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Prices are primarily controlled by demand that is why properties in areas that are growing are very expensive.

    • qyron@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      It implies the State, through the government, represents the country and deals with suppliers to achieve universal healthcare, education and housing goals.

      But the State should always (must) be the primary provider for healthcare and education, although not denying private initiative but instead heavily regulating it to ensure safety and quality.

      Health and Education are services, not for profit enterprises.

      On the housing front, many countries own and manage large numbers of affordable housing projects and to great success. This isn’t to say the housing market doesn’t require an heavy regulatory, as it does.