US Health Care System

@goldenelementxl: Source, please? I’d like to see some academic backing of that.

Because from what I know France is suffering from too many unskilled workers as well as an economic gap between the rich in Paris and the less well off in the rural areas where the gilet jaunes protests originated. It is way more complex than simply “businesses hate taxes”, which is a mostly American-centric view anyway.

I don't disagree with you there. I think the current system is incredibly flawed for numerous reasons.

But an aside on Cuba - their solution to the AIDS/HIV crisis was to put all those people in detention camps. maybe not the best representative for govt. control of healthcare.

I think the only way for medicare for all is if you pay doctors and hospital workers less, control drug costs, cut down on private insurance all that kind of stuff. I don't think they are planning to do all that, so I don't think it will work.

@joebones5000: “it works just fine everywhere else, and people like you said the same thing when everyone else implemented it. The real-world evidence is against you.”

I’m not going to turn this into a full blown economic debate. But look at countries with universal healthcare. Look at the tax rate that pays 50% in income taxes. Look at the median household income of those nations. The money for healthcare comes from somewhere.

In the U.K. People making 0 - around 32,000 pay 20% tax to the national health insurance program. Thats 15% more than America’s middle class tax rate and would be a 20% tax hike for 45% of Americans who pay nothing now. 32,000 - 150,000 pays 40%. That’s INSANE.

The median income in the U.K. Is 35,000. Thats a little under $45,000 in the U.S. That’s lower middle class. Can they afford this tax increase? That’s how it’s “working” everywhere else.

@goldenelementxl: What is the cost of insurance for this class in US? Both what it costs the employer and employee.

@joebones5000: You are talking the overall federal tax rate... Im talking the income tax directly paid to fund universal healthcare. People in the U.K. making 35K and less pay 20% of their wages to the healthcare system. About 9% comes from the individual and the other 11% comes from the employer. This is above and beyond any other federal programs and services.

You might wanna chill on the insults. One of us knows what they’re talking about. The other is you

That last sentence is really true for other developed countries, the healthcare is largely free while being among world's best practise.

That seems like such a piss poor system, all about the coin.
From what I understand, there are lots of people who cannot afford decent health care and there are often huge gap payments.
Are you saying your system is better than all the socialist countries who have a higher standard of living but yet do not have to pay for most treatments?

@THUMPTABLE: It’s not free. Far from it. Do people really not look at their pay stubs or tax forms?

The GoFundMe pages will save people, lol. It saved my friend (a nurse) who lost her house.....wait

@joebones5000: You're in the ACA marketplace? Let me get this straight...

You were paying less for healthcare than your U.K. example until you had to buy into a government run healthcare program?

@joebones5000:Also, the health insurance contributions are ON TOP OF the income tax rate...

Source

In the U.K., you will pay an additional 12% tax for National Insurance, which funds the NHS. The rest is paid by employers as a tax

@goldenelementxl said:

@joebones5000: You're in the ACA marketplace? Let me get this straight...

You were paying less for healthcare than your U.K. example until you had to buy into a government run healthcare program?

You would have a point if his pre-ACA coverage was equivalent to what the British get from the NHS. However, that would be EXTREMELY unlikely if not impossible. A lot of insurance plans before the ACA were outright garbage that's why they don't exist anymore.

@leicam6 said:

@goldenelementxl said:

@joebones5000: You're in the ACA marketplace? Let me get this straight...

You were paying less for healthcare than your U.K. example until you had to buy into a government run healthcare program?

You would have a point if his pre-ACA coverage was equivalent to what the British get from the NHS. However, that would be EXTREMELY unlikely if not impossible. A lot of insurance plans before the ACA were outright garbage that's why they don't exist anymore.

Now almost everybody's is shit.

I don't know about him, but my coverage has been pretty consistent pre and post ACA. The majority of the "garbage" plans were the cheap ones for younger workers or the self employed. The employers of low-income workers pretty much had to drop their coverage due to costs after the ACA went into effect. All these newer healthcare for all plans would require employers to pay more to pick up the employees share to avoid raising taxes on the middle class. I know most here won't care if a business has to pay more. All businesses are greedy, corrupt, evil baby killing monstrosities after all. But the end result will be more unemployment, lower wages, fewer hours etc... Nothing in this world is free. Don't let any politician tell you otherwise.

Off the topic, but I think part of the reason the US lags behind in health policy is because of the nature of its government. The US constitution was written in such a way that it's difficult to get any major policy passed. The old joke is that an act of god is more likely than an act of congress.

Obama had both the senate and the house and still struggled to get a decent bill passed. The ACA got some things right, but it really failed to address some major failings of the health system. Very disappointing because they could have done so much more.

@goldenelementxl: Good Lord. ACA plans are provided by private insurance companies. There are no goverment run insurance plans in the ACA marketplaces. That is why the centrist Democratic candidates are talking about making Medicare plans available on them, instead of going full Medicare for all.

And yes, I do look at my pay stub. Thats why I know the American health care system is expensive AF. Seriously, they could double my tax rate, and I'd still come out ahead. And that's before you even factor in what my employer is paying.

@judaspete: Bruh, the federal government runs the ACA marketplace in most states. In some, the state government runs it.

Bruh, those aren't mutually exclusive. The federal government can run the ACA marketplace, aka the platform on which plans are sold, without providing the actual plans.

Dude, your entire argument rests on discredited stereotypes about government and spending. "Government=bureaucratic waste, private business=efficiency" except that it's not true at all, and healthcare is a golden example of it. The industry is a massive pile of bureaucratic bloat due to the fact of differing rules of networks, billing procedures, coverage options, mainline plans, supplemental plans, etc., etc., etc. Just because in general private industry is more efficient does not mean that in every instance they are, and it doesn't mean private industry can't generate a ton of bureaucratic complications.

And if the federal government is making healthcare more affordable then it is putting money in the pockets of everyday Americans. It means less medical debt, less health related complications, less time spent putting off care because you can't afford it. It is taking money out of the economy as a whole, yes, but it is redirecting those funds to people who cannot afford health coverage or who are being overcharged right now and directly improving their financial situation.

And saying that the French pay 21% of their salary is GROSSLY misleading. They pay 8%, and their employers are required to contribute a sum equivalent to 13% (which is tax deductible, BTW). They most certainly do not just take the remaining 13% out of their employees' paychecks, that would completely defeat the purpose of employer contributions and be subject to penalties for doing so. Not that socialized medicine would have to be done exactly like the French system anyway, but assuming a salary of $50,000, eight percent is about $4,000 a year. The average U.S. citizen spends $9,600 a year, or more than twice that. I'd rather have dumbass politicians control healthcare than dumbass insurance executives.

Actually, the ACA provided for a medicaid expansion that increased the income necessary for eligibility. Plenty of states have opposed this, but in many states there is a government run option on that marketplace. Funnily enough, those states are also the ones with the most competitive markets and best priced plans. States without the public option tend to devolve into a "marketplace" with only one, usually very expensive option. So much for private business providing that vibrant free market conservatives are always barking about.

It keeps money in the economy, actually! If folks don't have health bills to pay for they can spend their disposable income in other ways like buying more goods and services.

But yes, that poster's views are indeed based off old stereotypes about universal healthcare. It's like he's living in 1979.

What's funny is that it's illegal for medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for drug prices. Both the VA and Medicaid are free to negotiate. If congress would simply allow medicare to negotiate prices, the CBO predicts it would save about 345 billion dollars over 5-6 years. Both the vast majority of democrats and republicans are in favor of this. That's a huge savings at a cost of almost nothing. No brainer in my book.

@leicam6: Well, yes, in all it does keep the money in the economy, but my point was that there does have to be some initial point where a tax is levied and money is taken out of the economy, albeit temporarily. You do raise another good point, though, that single payer taxation keeps money in a country's national economy. If a tax is levied on an international corporation or even a wealthy business owner who travels it prevents that money from being spent outside the country and rather ensures it is spent on medical care, which is inherently local. Who needs a trade war when you can just have single-payer?

@THUMPTABLE:

Just tried to answer your question, friend. I didn't offer an evaluation. You're entitled to form your own opinion.