151–160 of 312 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Europe has better life expectancy, Diet has a lot more to to about that than medical care.
That's actually also a health issue. In most EU countries you couldn't even stuff yourself with the crap that's allowed to be sold in the US.
With the healthcare being paid for by taxes, there is a lot more incentive for governments to push healthy eating. It also means that policies for bike/walking routes pay off more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> free education ( university included ) keep in mind that this is not a given in all EU countries. In the UK (still an EU country, though not for long) one has to either get a student loan from the British state, or cover their own tuition fees.
The British student loan system is essentially a graduate tax in disguise. You only repay 9% of your income over £21,000, deducted automatically from your wages in the same way as income tax. The loan is cancelled after 30 years, regardless of how much you have repaid. Young people understand that it's not a "debt" in the conventional sense of the word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The primary issue with the system before Obama was two-fold. 1) Too many young people didn't insure themselves meaning that the relatively low cost of having them as insured couldn't be used to balance out the higher cost needed for later on in life. This was putting the primary burden of the cost on the older generations. By forcing everyone to pay the idea was that you could even out the cost. 2) Pre-existing condi…
1) Too many young people didn't insure themselves meaning that the relatively low cost of having them as insured couldn't be used to balance out the higher cost needed for later on in life. This was putting the primary burden of the cost on the older generations. This shouldn't be a significant problem. In an actuarial sense, the burden of the cost should largely be born by the party with the risk. If you aren't doin…
But the whole point of insurance is that you make it work because most people wont be needing their insurance so it's a question of interpretation.
And yes I think you are right about your solution. I can compare same treatment in Denmark with those of here in the US and the difference is just too big to be true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The primary issue with the system before Obama was two-fold. 1) Too many young people didn't insure themselves meaning that the relatively low cost of having them as insured couldn't be used to balance out the higher cost needed for later on in life. This was putting the primary burden of the cost on the older generations. By forcing everyone to pay the idea was that you could even out the cost. 2) Pre-existing condi…
1) Too many young people didn't insure themselves meaning that the relatively low cost of having them as insured couldn't be used to balance out the higher cost needed for later on in life. This was putting the primary burden of the cost on the older generations. This shouldn't be a significant problem. In an actuarial sense, the burden of the cost should largely be born by the party with the risk. If you aren't doin…
Worse still, Obamacare was structured with a bunch of subsidies that expire over the next few years, lasting just long enough to push the pain into someone else's presidency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I-don't-want-to-pay-for-others != I will not insure my health. US health system needs competition more than socialism [1]. [1] https://mises.org/blog/lack-epipen-competitors-fdas-fault EDIT: A really good comment from link above. Mark S - https://mises.org/blog/lack-epipen-competitors-fdas-fault#co... The culprit in virtually all health care or drug price gouging outrages is insurance and "free" taxpayer money. Ameri…
Competition is not the issue, it's private healthcare itself. There is not a single country I know of where private healthcare works.
There is also a public healcare system here which is quite terrible.
Interestingly, some public hospitals offer "special clinic" hours where you can get treatment on a cash basis instead of using the public healthcare system. Since the "special clinics" are not so heavily oversubscribed the wait times are shorter and service is better. Not luxurious like the private hospitals (which are indeed luxurious) but solid care by excellent doctors. I had foot surgery at Siriraj Hospital (oldest and largest public hospital [0]) by an excellent specialist [1] who also practicies at Bumrungrad (pricey private hospital). Total cost of everything, including two nights in hospital, was USD700.
I guess that's a sort of hybrid of public and private and is an excellent value. But the private healthcare is outstanding and (again) luxurious, and while more expensive still only a fraction of western pricing. The thing is, the prices are known and even advertised in advance and you can just pay out of pocket. Wife had surgery at Bumrungrad to remove an ovarian cyst, three nights in hospital with pampered treatment, total cost a little over USD2,000.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siriraj_Hospital [1] https://www.bumrungrad.com/doctors/Bavornrit-Chuckpaiwong
I think I (living in the UK, currently an EU country) understand the mentality behind the US healthcare system(s). I think it's along the lines of "Why should I pay for someone else's healthcare?". I've heard similar arguments from British people (I'm rather more socialist in my outlook than average, for a UK resident, I fear) and I don't really have an answer to that. Why indeed? I'm probably conditioned to answer t…
>"Why should I pay for someone else's healthcare?". >and I don't really have an answer to that. Why indeed? Because you don't know what is going to happen in the future. One day you may wind up broke and be diagnosed with a serious illness. And what about any children you may have. Wouldn't you like to know that they will receive care after you are dead no matter what is going on in their life?
And in the past I was very young and couldn't yet fend for myself. I benefitted from being born in a developed nation and, like you say, if my parents had died while I was young, I'd have been taken care of (though in my country's case it would probably be my extended family that'd have looked after me, first, and the state would only intervene if I had noone to care for me).
Like, I totally get what you're saying, but a significant number of people don't see it that way. Maybe they forget they were once too young, or that they will one day be too old. Maybe they just think they can do well enough for themselves that they'll just wing it.
My point is that for many people contributing to things like public healthcare doesn't make sense.
For instance- in the UK education is not free, and you will hear lots of people saying, indeed "why should I pay for someone else's education?". That's much more common than grumbling about having to pay for the NHS, but in the end it's just the same thing.
I was hospitalised in France last year - and coming from the UK, which has a social healthcare system too, I was likewise blown away by the quality of care. I was staying in a remote house, miles from the nearest village, an hour from the nearest hospital. After about four days of continuous vomiting in 40 degree heat I caved and called a doctor, in the hope of getting a prescription for antiemetics over the phone. I…
British people have both a strong sentimental attachment to the NHS and a strong aversion to taxation. They're willing to overlook the flaws of the service if it means they don't have to pay more for it. I can't say it's an unreasonable position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's another way to look at it that I don't think the USA will be ready to understand any time soon: Universal health and education are (key parts of) freedom. You can even put a market spin on it: None of the risks involved in starting a small business in Australia have to do with health care for myself, or for people who might consider joining my small business as employees. I've never felt as if I'm giving up a…
That impression probably comes from the fact that you're not on the payer side of the bills, you're always on the receiver side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's another way to look at it that I don't think the USA will be ready to understand any time soon: Universal health and education are (key parts of) freedom. You can even put a market spin on it: None of the risks involved in starting a small business in Australia have to do with health care for myself, or for people who might consider joining my small business as employees. I've never felt as if I'm giving up a…
That impression probably comes from the fact that you're not on the payer side of the bills, you're always on the receiver side.
I like to think of western-europe as an all-in or full-service country. Maybe you pay a bit more, but you get way better service, and by not having to decide and buy yourself you're left with more of what's really important: free time.
Most of what is state provided is fairly high quality: from health-care, to education to infrastructure our government does a pretty good job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But only if it's called socialism. If it can be called something else, then it will be accepted. In my experience, US citizens (not all, obviously; I'm massively generalising) have been conditioned to be against things labelled socialism, but the level of economic and political knowledge amongst the general public is such that if you don't call something socialism, it is judged on its own merits without people realis…
Opponents will hang that label on it, and then it doesn't matter whether or not the general populace would recognise it. It's interesting that my comment is somehow controversial, because it's been down to -2, is now back to -1. I wonder whether they are objecting to my calling "universal healthcare funded by taxes on the general populace" socialism, or whether they are objecting to the claim that the USA populace wo…