1960
Nice work Mexico! (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/upliftingnews@lemmy.world
231 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

More info: https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/mexico-is-officially-launching-universal-healthcare-this-week/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 months ago (10 children)

Because healthcare has been free in Mexico for decades. This seems like the usual political posturing. Saying "healthcare is free" is an empty statement if people are turned away at the point of service because of a lack of medicine or service providers. Give them three months and then check again. Then you'll know if it was a shallow gesture or not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago* (7 children)

    But a cursory google search shows that it isn't currently free for everyone, and in particular tied to your employment status. This means that in your negotiations with your employer, your health is essentially a bargaining chip (and this is bad for you and your salary for obvious reasons). The new system abolishes this tie to employment. This is a huge step for workers and the unemployed alike. This is not a hollow gesture.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    It is not part of your negotiations with your employer. You get health insurance through IMSS (social security) by law. It is not optional and the service is not tied to your salary. You can make millions, or minimum wage, your IMSS coverage would be the same.

    We've had another coverage called "seguro popular", this has been free and not tied to employment since early 2000s. It was revamped and gutted by the previous president. The only requirement to get coverage was to not have coverage by IMSS. So, employed, you get IMSS. Unemployed, you got seguro popular.

    So it is an empty gesture

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Yes it is. A repeat of a previous comment:

    If you lose your job, you lose your coverage. That makes it a bargaining chip. The employer has one up on you in negotiations. When I negotiate my salary (my health insurance is not tied to my employment), I know that if I can’t work it out with my (potential) employer, and I get sick, I’ll be fine. Not so if my coverage was tied to employment. The pressure to accept an offer that’s worse for me would be much higher.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    It is linked to employment but equal and mandatory for all employees, so not quite a bargaining chip in the way it is in the usa

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    If you lose your job, you lose your coverage. That makes it a bargaining chip. The employer has one up on you in negotiations. When I negotiate my salary (my health insurance is not tied to my employment), I know that if I can't work it out with my (potential) employer, and I get sick, I'll be fine. Not so if my coverage was tied to employment. The pressure to accept an offer that's worse for me would be much higher.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •