- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
and, overall it would cost about half what we’re paying now as a nation for health care.
And the outcomes would be better.
Doctors would actually spend time with patients instead of jumping through hoops for insurance denials. Yes, their staff handles much of it, but there are insurance issues that they end up having to deal with directly, wasting their time.
Patients could get medical care early on instead of letting medical issues worsen until they become emergencies, which also results in more expensive treatments and worse outcomes
At my last physical my doctor when on a short rant about insurance. Told me that the reason that there is so much burnout and a high suicide rate among medical professionals isn’t due to their primary job function, helping people become healthier, it was due to having to deal with insurance companies bullshit.
It must really suck to be a good hearted doctor in that system. When every incentive is to push unnecessary interventions and you must encounter patients that can’t or won’t accept your help because it would ruin them or their family financially.
Doctors would actually spend time with patients instead of jumping through hoops for insurance denials.
If you think doctors don’t have to spend time jumping through hoops for insurance companies in countries with socialized healthcare I have some bad news for you.
And that doesn’t even count the extra that people are paying for private insurance. How much the government spends per capita (of the whole country) on healthcare is double what other first world countries pay even though in the USA it only covers a third of US citizens.
Won’t anyone think of the poor billionaire shareholders??
I showed this to my mom, and her reply was “but that socialism!” And promptly hung up on me.
Some people are so stupid and stubborn that they would rather be bilked by conmen than to actually get the care they need, affordably.
That’s kind of bullshit we’re dealing with.
Don’t try to explain public roads, bridges, dams, water & sewerage, police, fire brigades or the military to her… she might just have an aneurysm.
“so, mom, you’d rather i die than receive affordable health care?”
She’s rich, so all of that will never affect her. But she sure as shit would rather I die and every other one of “the poors” than to pay even one penny more in taxes.
Insurance IS socialism. By definition. The only difference is who holds the money from the group to pay out claims. In one, it’s the government which has an incentive to keep costs low across the board. The other it is a private company trying to make as much profit as possible.
US healthcare is extortion
When I was in grad school, I went to a conference in Portugal. One of the other American grad students slipped on a paving stone and bust his leg. It wasn’t that bad, but he was freaking out because he had no idea how European insurance worked and he was afraid he’d be in serious debt. Everyone at the hospital thought that was hilarious. Why would getting hurt put you in debt? They patched him up for no charge. In theory he could have gone to some office and made a modest payment, but nobody was going to actually make him do that.
Think of the knock off effects of universal health care beyond paying less.
you would not be tied to a shitty job anymore - your ability to quit and move to another company becomes easier
You could quit your job and start your own company since now you don’t have to worry about medical bankruptcy
Or maybe you live a minimal enough of a life that you could quit your job that you have only because of the health insurance and go do something that is fulfilling to you?
A huge reason that I took the job I have now is because they let me start my health insurance plan asap. It was supposed to be after 3 months but I just asked nice and they didn’t hesitate to agree even without my whole spcheil. I have a wife and a son, at the time my wife was still going through some post pregnancy health issues and my son was going through some stuff that required regular visits. I turned down some cushy jobs solely because they wanted me to wait 3-6 months to be insured, which I get from a business perspective, but what the actual fuck? It took me a while to switch jobs for that reason alone. I guess it’s a good indicator of a company that has common sense/common decency.
I’ve had jobs where you have to wait for 401k but Healthcare has always been covered on day 1.
It’s got to end soon, or we’re well screwed.
My insurance payment + my jobs contribution (can’t say whether or not they lie on the form about their share) is over a thousand per month. And I still have co-pays and shit that isn’t covered. I’ve had a couple of X-rays and and a sling this year. I’m probably out another $2k on top of my insurance. It would be much cheaper for me to pay out of pocket and save the difference for a rainy day.
Fuck the entire insurance industry.
And the concept of tying it to employment is not only idiotic and nonsensical, but actually pretty devious.
Really USA, how does anyone pretend this is OK?
Its not OK and we need to nationalize healthcare now. But much of that above graph is also associated with the obesity epedemic and the nutritional collapse (or caloric inflation) of the western diet. Government definitely has a role in that, but its much trickier than obliterating the medical insurance industry (which of course is also tricky).
Freedom isn’t free 😤😤😤
No copays is not necessarily true.
Back in Australia it was a flat $35 for a PCP visit. A $35 office visit copay with 100% coverage and no deductible is functionally the same.
Our healthcare here in the US is a brutal costly joke. It instantly disproves any claims that our leaders make to care about the welfare of US citizens.
TL;DR: AU isn’t a good model to base change off. Expensive and scammy.
Not sure what a PCP is, but before I left AU earlier this year, my GP visits were ~AU$100 with a $40 rebate. Private healthcare cannot cover the $60 gap by law, along with a host of other specialists and scans. It felt like a massive scam to have private health. Yes there are free clinics you can go to (“Bulk Billing”), but in my experience because they were always overworked and understaffed, the standard of care wasn’t as good. Plus it was hard to see the same doctor regularly, so you waste more of everyone’s time going over your medical history.
Compare that to Germany, I decided to go with public health here, which comes directly out of my paycheque. It’s expensive, but I don’t see that money and I can go to basically any (English speaking) doctor here, pay nothing for the appointment, and prescriptions are 5 or 10€ (only had one so far, can’t remember the exact cost). Standard of care feels much more in line with the private care of AU. I know there are some scans and blood tests I may need to pay for, but nothing feels scammy so far.
Japan is also 30% due at time of service, though prices are nothing like the US (that 30% also drops in retirement age). People can and often do get some kind of private insurance, usually bundled with their life insurance, to cover certain life-altering events. I imagine there’s some sort of private health insurance like US folks would think of, but I don’t know anyone who carries it. One can do certain procedures off insurance and pay (still cheaper than US prices) here as well if they want.
Fuckingcapitalists
This could probably be paid in full by lowering military budget by a tiny fraction.
We would save about 45% of what we pay now. We could increase the military budget. Universal healthcare literally pays for itself.
Accurate portrayal of Joe Lieberman in that pic. Didn’t feel bad when that dude died. The cherry on top would have been if he’d had tons of medical debt when he went, but I’m sure he still had million in the bank from all that lobby loot.
As usual with those sorts of memes, the numbers are completely wrong. European nations spend around 11-12% of GDP on healthcare vs about 17% for the US. So you’d likely pay significantly less (about 30% less) with a similar public healthcare system, but far more than this pic pretends.
Remember kids, don’t believe everything you see on the internet.
US GDP is much higher than most (all?) European nations. California, on its own, is the fifth (at least the last time I looked) largest GDP in the world when compared to nations.
The US also has a massive population, which means a much larger insurance pool, which means the risk is spread out over a much larger swathe of people (and ethnicities, lifestyles, etc.).
So I’m not going to say this pic is accurate, as I have no actual numbers on this… But I also don’t think it’s fair to assume that it will cost the same % of GDP as nations that are a fraction of our size (and are often nearly homogeneous population-wise).
US GDP is much higher than most (all?) European nations.
And as you accurately pointed out, US population is also higher, and have different costs of living. Which is why we compare countries in % of GDP and not in raw dollars spent nationwide, which would make no sense at all.
The US also has a massive population, which means a much larger insurance pool, which means the risk is spread out over a much larger swathe of people (and ethnicities, lifestyles, etc.).
Doesn’t make any difference when you go over a few million people (or possibly much less)
So I’m not going to say this pic is accurate, as I have no actual numbers on this
Well I do, and this pic is clearly bullshit.
Just because you like the message doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to point out obvious lies.
Well yeah but percentage of GDP is just the total spent. The point is that the USA relies primarily on employers paying for the insurance (through a pay cut) whereas in the EU it is generally subsidised with taxes. Which, if you tax fairly, means that the cost of healthcare is better for the average worker (e.g more based on how much any individual earns)
The point is that the USA relies primarily on employers paying for the insurance (through a pay cut) whereas in the EU it is generally subsidised with taxes.
This is a huge misconception. In the EU it’s also funded by the employers, the difference is that it’s usually mandatory (a tax taken out of the paycheck at the employer level) and also typically goes into a governement-run insurance system (ie the British NHS or the French sécu).
Ultimately it’s always people who pay for health care, because companies are just legal entities. The difference is how it’s organized and how much it cost.
Plus it also means that the government has an actual incentive to keep the insurance companies honest
“30% less” 😂 US GDP (it said % of pay, but let’s play your game) per capita is 1.5x or more European countries, so try at least 50% less. It’s a meme, it’s not meant to be accurate, but if you’re going to be a pedant at least be right.
Not to mention the lower cost is like 3rd on the list of reasons why public health care is amazing. Why you our here shilling for big business pal?
It’s a meme, it’s not meant to be accurate
That’s what every boomer on FB propagating fake news about immigrants eating pets also say. Just because it’s a picture means outright lying is okay. (and if it was lying in the other political direction, you’d likely be the first calling bullshit)
Why you our here shilling for big business pal?
Ah yes because everyone who isn’t into lying is “shilling for big business”? Life must be simple in your head. Maybe some people think the truth matters more then coddling their feeling?
So when the meme was wrong about 5% vs 20% it was “outright lying” but when you were shown to be wrong about your 30% you just continue on your high horse. Cool beans.
Not a political issue for me anymore thank goodness. Lived in the US for a while but very glad that public health is available for everyone where I live now (as is literally everyone else I know).
I mean private healthcare is strictly worse for everyone except business owners (and doctors without morals I guess). So that’s my best guess at your motivation, but please correct me. Why?
but when you were shown to be wrong about your 30%
You showed nothing. Both the US and Europe mostly rely on making the employer pay, though in Europe it’s typically mandatory and sent to a national system rather than the employer deciding by itself (or not) to pay for a private insurer for varying level of coverage. So there’s just no way the US employers pay 300% more for a system which is “only” 50% more costly.
(also co-pays are fairly standard everywhere in Europe, to avoid abuses)
So that’s my best guess at your motivation, but please correct me. Why?
My motivation is fighting misinformation. Just because the misinformation comes from the side you support doesn’t mean you should ignore it. In this case someone just made up shock numbers to get engagement and clicks, and that’s not how you support a sound health care policy.
OK cool, well if “someone is wrong on this Internet” is more important to you than making a case for a better health are system (that I note you have spent 0 energy on) I think I’m done. Thanks for the entertainment of “$5k per person is 30% cheaper than $10k” though, that was a good one.
if “someone is wrong on this Internet” is more important to you
If you think misinformation and propaganda is “someone being wrong on the internet” you are clearly a lost cause. Hope you enjoy the troll farms!
$5k per person is 30% cheaper than $10k”
Never wrote such a thing. Good strawman.
“As usual with those sorts of memes, the numbers are completely wrong. European nations spend around 11-12% of GDP on healthcare vs about 17% for the US. So you’d likely pay significantly less (about 30% less)”
Dis you?
Who is paying 20% to just health care?
A little over 20% includes taxes as well out of my pay.
For reference, in Belgium state mandated health care (RSZ) is about 40% of your income (1).
There is copay on things like glasses, hospitalization costs, … With additional (optional) insurance for those.
I feel like there’s a lot of misinformation spread around EU health insurance.
Readers added the following context:
Untrue.
It’s 13%.
It covers both heath care and social care (old people’s homes and help for elderly or disabled).
You’re referring to
The employee’s share of social security taxes is 13.07% of the total gross compensation, with no cap.
From source (1), I assume.
It’s true that the other 27% is taken from your wages by your employer, before it reaches you. But what’s the difference? Is it not still your take home pay that gets reduced by 40% for the purposes of health insurance?
It really sounds like you have no idea what the difference is between employee contributions and employer contributions.
Answer me this. If you get a company car for free, do you complain that your salary was reduced?
I have been in that situation. As I didn’t need a car, I asked for and indeed got a raise instead.
Congratulations. You must live somewhere with good public transport or good cycling infrastructure or really near your workplace.
But I think it’s hopelessly naive to think that if you reduced taxes on companies pay for ordinary workers would go up, or that they would get anywhere even slightly enough to pay for the sort of healthcare available for free in countries with socialised healthcare.
Like I said, Americans spend roughly twice as much on healthcare as other wealthy countries and their health outcomes are worse than most of them. Who knew that maximising shareholder income wasn’t the best motivator for good, well priced healthcare?
available for free in countries with socialised healthcare
That’s exactly the point I’m trying to communicate.
Americans grossly underestimate the costs of the system (“5% of your paycheque”, “free”, …).
I’m not saying it’s better. I’m not saying it’s worse. I’m saying that statements like that are factually incorrect. There seems to be a naievity or worse, propagandic force in statements like that.
That’s exactly the point I’m trying to communicate.
Really?! Weird.
Americans grossly underestimate the costs of the system
Whilst paying roughly twice as much as people in other wealthy nations.
Tell me you don’t understand taxation without telling me you don’t understand taxation.
Please, explain
If Johnny has 100 apples and the Belgian government gives 13 of them to some folk in hospital or care homes and Johnny doesn’t ever spend a penny on health care, how many apples does he have, and what does it matter to Johnny if his employer who has tens of thousands of apples has to give some of them to the folks in hospital instead of to the shareholders?
If Jimmy has 150 apples and the US government takes 20 of them and he gives 50 of them to his health insurer to pay down debt and then has to remortgage his house to pay for his Mum’s cancer treatment, how much better off do you think Jimmy really is?
“The United States has the world’s highest per capita health care costs—about double those of other wealthy nations”
Let’s do Johhny’s accounting in the first example:
Johnny works for a month and made 100 apples (Dt.), and 40 apples debt (Cr.) to RSZ.
His employer takes 27 and gives it to RSZ. Johnny receives 73 apples. His ledger reads 73 Dt, 13 Cr.
Johny then has to give 13 apples to RSZ. Johnny now has 60 apples (Dt.), and has no more debt (0Cr.) to RSZ.
Johnny cares because of his 100 apples worth of work, he gets to keep 60.
i gotta say, hats off, this is some expert trolling
Lol.
Johnny made 400 apples for the company, who gave him 100, the government took 13 and he got 87. The government also took 27 of the 250 apples (left after rent, heating, lighting cleaning and maintenance costs) that the company had wanted to keep for the executive pay and shareholders. They complained bitterly about how expensive it was and lied to Johnny that they would definitely have given him all of those 27 apples, honestly, definitely, if only the nasty government hadn’t stolen them for a bunch of very undeserving sick people and elderly people who were just making Johnny poorer.
Last year, when Johnny made 30 more apples than usual, he got a one apple bonus, the chief executive got a 10 apple bonus and the shareholders got the other 19.
deleted by creator
Maybe I’m blind, but I don’t see any mention of healthcare costs on the source you gave.
Per the OECD website, per capita healthcare spending in the US is the worst amongst the entire OECD, and Belgium is comparable to France and Sweden. Not the best, but far from the worst (and not accounting for better healthcare outcomes).
I don’t have sources on hand, but the US in general rates the worst for healthcare outcomes too.
that’s because they cite incorrect data.
“social security” is not health care fund; and 40% is employer and employee combined (employee only is ~ 13%) contribution. social security is pensions, survivor benefits, unemployment, sickness and maternity leave, etc.
employee share of contribution to public health insurance fund is (iirc) only 3.55%
employee share of contribution to public health insurance fund
If your employer takes part of your wages and pays, or you take part of your wages and pay. What’s the difference?
The “employee share” vs “employer share” makes no difference?
Even if you were making the point you think you’re making… The US already has employer-contributions to health care, and its a whole lot. My experience likely isn’t the norm as I’m in a union position, but my employer foots the bill for something like ~70% of my health insurance. They take a chunk out of my paycheck, but it’s still only maybe 1/3 of what it actually costs.
So if you want it to be a fair comparison, you’re going to have to take that into consideration too. If you’re suggesting that an employer in an EU nation will pay someone less because they have to shell out to contribute to their health insurance, then you need to realize that the same conditions are present here.
It’s not really fair to only include that on one side of the equation, when it is happening on both sides.
That’s a fair point I did not consider. Thank you.
I’m mainly confused about the “5% of your paycheck” claim made here.
It’s way, way higher in places that do have universal healthcare, all things considered.
People unfamiliar with the system seem to often have unrealistic expectations, exacerbated by political propaganda.
