Mexico already has a constitutionally guaranteed right to healthcare:
Every person has the right to health protection. The law shall determine the bases and terms to access health services and shall establish the competence of the Federation and the Local Governments in regard to sanitation according to the item XVI in Article 73 of this Constitution.
In practice, this has meant a bare minimum level of health care is theoretically available to everyone, but most working people have private insurance on top of that, or see private doctors. For the poorest people it has often been very difficult to get the care they need, even if it’s theoretically available and constitutionally guaranteed. It’s also different from American / Canadian / European hospitals in that family is expected to play a major role doing things that in richer countries are done by nurses or orderlies.
IMO, universal healthcare only really works if the middle class / upper middle class and the poor are all in the same system. If the people can pay more and get better care, they’ll do it, and the system used by the poor will be underfunded. You can’t do much about the truly rich. They’ll always just fly to other countries. If this is just filling the gaps between the various reasons people can use the state system, it’s not going to help that much, even if that kind of fix is necessary.
70% of US voters want universal healthcare; 90% of Democrats and 50% of Independents.
Only Republican voters disagree, with something like 30% supporting. (all of these numbers are approximations there are many Gallup polls over the years).
I’m not a mathematician, but it appears to my untrained eye that 2/3 of Americans want Universal Healthcare. That’s a very solid majority.
Why can’t Ds and Rs manage to provide what the US voters want? Allow Republicans or anyone else to “opt out” of the system.
That’s a rhetorical question. bOtH pArTiEs aren’t interested in what their voters want.
Somehow, Israel can be financed for DECADES without the same level of voter approval.
50% of voters support Israel= billions of dollars every year
70% of voters support universal healthcare= no universal healthcare.
Kinda weird, ain’t it?
Public support fractures if the questions are broken down into more detail. People have unfounded fears of new “death panels”, and founded fears of the government screwing up implementation (Canada has crazy wait times for many medical services - it’s an outlier among developed countries, but demonstrates the screw-up opportunity). People support new services if they are funded magically, but aren’t willing to support tax raises, even though the tax increases would be less than the savings from not paying for private health insurance.
The complexity - and partisan politicians being more than willing to weaponize confusion over details to divide us against each other - is the barrier.
Profit based health insurance is not only immoral, it’s fucking infuriating.
The health insurance lobby fights it and also employers don’t want it because then people can quit without worrying about losing their health care.
Must be nice to have politicians who are trying to improve the lives of the people.
Just a reminder that her predecessor removed this universal access when it was called “Seguro Popular” to create the INSABI that was later renamed “IMSS-Bienestar” and was ultimately integrated into the regular IMSS due to them cutting funds for it in 2025 (she was in charge at this point).
In any case, this barely helps anyone because even if we have ‘universal healthcare’ its quality is going down every year. There are no drugs (medicines) and not enough medical professionals to cover the demand and that has been a reality of anyone visiting an IMSS clinic.
As usual, be critical of any head of state.
CIA backed fascist coup in 3…2…
They’ll just pay a drug lord to take her out and leave it be.
I have a feeling you are closer to the truth than you might imagine.
deleted by creator
it didn’t happen with Seguro Popular why would it be any different now?
What really makes me chuckle is whenever someone tries to insist to me that Mexican men are chauvinists, and I have to remind them that not only did they elect a woman, but they elected a woman who is doing FDR shit and actually making people’s lives better.
I’m jealous. The closest we got was Bernie and both parties swift-boated him.
What is FDR?
Franklin D. Roosevelt, a US president who in the 1930’s ended the great depression by finally implementing some social welfare programs and reining in corporate power somewhat (like protecting the right to unionize) to prevent a socialist revolution.
God I love the Fediverse.
Feels weird, but I just love that people answer questions and aren’t jerks about it.
¿Por qué no los dos?
The chillness of this place has been pretty awesome, and I very much want to perpetuate that chillness and goodwill as best I can :)
Depends on the question.
Lemmy, why is windows so much better than Linux?
Windows 7 has much better compatibility with 2000’s era apps than Linux.
Because fuck you that’s why.
Oh look, an extra $20 in my bank account! Thanks…Not Microsoft
All accurate beyond debate except for the part about his social programs ending the depression. That point is debatable, the debate being that it was actually deficit spending to industrialize for WW2 that did it.
Flying Death Robots
Flaming dick rubs
They are horribly chauvinistic.
Let’s play a game. The US elected Obama so they are not racist riiight?
Agreed. And with sexism, the link is even weaker.
America is only 15% black so it at least suggests that a good chunk of the other 85% were not too racist to elect Obama.
But humanity is 52% women so in theory, women could elect a woman even if every man in the country was in fact chauvinist.
Correct, the major reason she won the elections is because she was supported by her predecessor. (There was another female candidate too!)
We can’t ignore that since AMLO was in power he started a daily televised show that acts as state propaganda and one of his missions was to “continue the 4th transformation” as in “you need to vote for my party no matter who it is”.
(US citizens will relate to the propaganda right now with the White House putting up press conferences almost daily to convince people that they are winning while trying to police which press is ‘good’ and which is ‘bad’)
You can see the chauvinism in some of the criticisms coming to Claudia, I don’t agree with any of that misogynist bullshit but a lot of people are angry with her and the only thing they can say is “we won’t have another female president”.
I see the point you’re getting at, but this is too big of a debate for Saturday morning. :)
Have a great day.
You know what my ancestors are native origins to Mexico…
Can someone tell, is the president actually socialist or more just sain person who want to improve things? Like central-leftist, compared to far left wing socialist
I’d say she is a social democrat.
… but to most Americans that is far left and thus labelled socialism because America is a very right wing country. Even the ‘left’ in America is basically a right wing party in most other western democracies.
centrist and that’s taking it too far, she is promoting fracking right now
Morena (Sheinbaum and AMLO’s party) is left to centre-left, much like PSOE.
Good for Mexico! Let’s hope USA is past invading their Latin American neighbours when they elect Socialist leaders, though…
Lmao, good one
Somebody better put up a big fuckoff wall between the US and Mexico to keep the Americans out.
I think i have seen this storyline in a tv show before.
She built a wall and made Americans pay for it! God damn socialists! /s
Since coming to power in 2024, Sheinbaum has sought to undo decades of damage caused by neoliberal policies, building on the work of the previous socialist government. She has pledged to build 1.8m new homes to tackle a housing shortage while strengthening tenants’ rights.
Last year she announced plans to shorten the work week from 48 hours to 40 hours, while increasing the minimum wage by 13%, continuing a policy of regular hikes championed by her predecessor and mentor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador since 2018.
“For years it was said that the minimum wage couldn’t go up,” she told a conference in December, “that it would cause inflation, that there would no longer be investment in the country, foreign investment.”
Despite that, following a cumulative minimum wage increase of 154% since 2018, “we are at a record level of foreign investment,” she added.
Since coming to power in 2024, Sheinbaum has sought to undo decades of damage caused by neoliberal policies, building on the work of the previous socialist government. She has pledged to build 1.8m new homes to tackle a housing shortage while strengthening tenants’ rights.
Meanwhile, when she was governing CDMX, she worked with Airbnb and it helped to gentrify even more sections for the city. There have been people forced out of homes they have lived in for decades due to this pressure.
Last year she announced plans to shorten the work week from 48 hours to 40 hours, while increasing the minimum wage by 13%, continuing a policy of regular hikes championed by her predecessor and mentor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador since 2018.
The people actually demanded this to be immediate, but they preferred to listen to business owners and are just reducing it 2 hours for each year, culminating to 40 hours in 2030.
They didn’t change anything related to how many days we need to work each week, so employers will try to squeeze these hours into 6-day workweeks anyway. She argued that this was not part of the historical demand for a 40 hour work-week.
Oh yeah and they EXTENDED the limit for extra-hours.
“For years it was said that the minimum wage couldn’t go up,” she told a conference in December, “that it would cause inflation, that there would no longer be investment in the country, foreign investment.”
Despite that, following a cumulative minimum wage increase of 154% since 2018, “we are at a record level of foreign investment,” she added.
Well that’s true, but at the same time the cost for food has nearly doubled
I should move to Mexico.
Please don’t, we are already gentrified enough
Mexico is hardly gentrified. There are some areas where there are a lot of immigrants, but the population is about 130 million, and less than 1% are foreign born. That’s significantly lower than both USA and Canada.
This made me think about it. Seriously. If I could get about $2k for gas I could get to TJ.
I would cease to exist were I that far from Trader Joe’s.
TJ is short for Toe Job, a kinky sexual practice done by foot fetishist.
Random, but why is she called “socialist”? Is she going to ban capitalism (stock markets, public companies, private properties, bonds, etc.)? Or are we simply calling her socialist because she’s closer to European capitalism (balanced, kept in check, regulated) rather than US capitalism?
It makes a certain kind of sense to me. Making capitalism serve social goals is obviously a mix of philosophies but if capitalism is serving socialistic ends, isn’t socialism prioritized?
The essence of socialism, to me, is serving the social good as top priority. Not centrally managing the economy. Capitalism can be a “how” with socialism as the “why.”
Im really confused.
Is she going to ban capitalism (stock markets, public companies, private properties, bonds, etc.)?
This is communism.
Socialist think that goverment funds should be used to help its people. You know… Society. Schools, healthcare, public infra. Things like that. Socialism does not mean banning private schools and hospitals, or that nobody could not own any land.
I think you misunderstood my “property” word in the context of socialism. Both in communism and socialism, owning properties for means of production, labor, etc. is generally restricted, but the difference here is that in socialism you can (generally) own your own housing. Yes, this includes banning private hospitals and private schools for profit
No it does not mean banning anything.
Goverment sets certain stantard of public healthcare and education, but if you want something outside of it, or for some reason, like long wait time for surgery etc. you can go to private sector.
Pretty sure she is socialist in the “when the government does things” sense, not the “will end capitalism” sense.
There is a very long tradition of gradualist reformist socialism, that goes all the way back to the 2nd International.
Her party is democratic socialist, center left, not socialism, left.
Socialist is not a bad word. Only in the US it’s a bad word, because socialism means billionaires need to earn less, and the billionaires won’t allow that.
I never said it’s a bad word, but as someone from the east, socialist sounds a bit over-the-top for just healthcare, socialism (social policies) is part of any well balanced capitalism system for me.
Here in Europe elements like healthcare still fall under socialism.
Im not sure how the Mexican government operates, but typically it’s not all-or-nothing. Just because a socialist gets elected doesn’t mean they suddenly have the power to completely overturn a country and kick capitalism out. Such changes would require overwhelming majorities.
However, socialists would strive to implement those elements of their idealogies they can.
Agreed. But the context of the area needs to be accounted for. Socialist ideas compared to the old status quo.
I wish European capitalism was anywhere near what you seem to think. It’s just less worse… for now.
Than the PPE and its ilk.
Being a socialist doesn’t mean you have to ban capitalism the moment you get power. Or at all. There are many ways to be socialist and do socialist policy. The overarching ideology is the belief we can do better than capitalism by distributing the resources we create according to amount of work and need, instead of profit maximization. How and how quickly we achieve that differs between different kinds of socialists. Sometimes dramatically.
Or at all
Socialism is defined by opposition to capitalism, if you don’t support eventually moving beyond Capitalism, you’re definitionally a liberal.
I love how nowadays words don’t have meanings anymore. Thank you, USA!
A socialist does support moves beyond capitalism, but in a representative democracy they wouldn’t have the power to do that outright. So it goes in small steps, starting with checks and regulations to prevent capitalism from going rampant (like it is in the US).
You’re not wrong but some render their opposition to capitalism by reducing the scope of the capitalist system. Something liberals tend not to do. Are all reformists committed to bringing it down to zero? Maybe, maybe not. I probably wouldn’t call a self-proclaimed socislist who spends their life reducing the capitalist part of their state a lib if they are okay with say 10% of the economy remaining capitalist.
The morena Party she is from could be defined as a “social democrat party” The state provides some social programs like healthcare, scholarships, help for single mothers, subsidized public transportation, and monetary help for the elderly.
I magine to people in highly capitalist countries these policies would be seen as socialism, but it feels more like a hybrid system. Most of the markets are capitalist with some light government regulation and some basic needs are socialized. I always find it weird how people draw these black and white distinctions today. I’d argue most governments of the world have hybrid systems in their economic management, even America with their welfare programs.
I can’t find anything about her calling herself a socialist, but she’s definitely to the left of most European politicians. Of course she’s working from a less development and more rightwing starting point so her policies seem like common sense to Europeans, but equating her with folks like the SPD based on that would be wrong. You don’t really get this kind of anti-neoliberal, overt social democracy from mainstream European parties anymore.
Those Europeans you speak of call themselves socialist too, but they still with the capitalistic system and control the redistribution mechanisms bolted on.
Take that, USA…
Dentures
Shoes
