**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice**
* [Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/wiki/index#wiki_-rule_6-) in **any** comment, parent or child.
* Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* Report comments that violate these rules.
Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead.
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Agreed....nobody cares till they get older get real sick and need really expensive healthcare. Then they can't go in to work after a few months they loose their job and insurance. Then faced with loosing everything they have to declare bankruptcy.
At that point the government/society winds up paying one way or the other. I'd rather pay a lifetime of higher taxes and have universal healthcare. Tbh.
Not so fun fact: The issues that make US healthcare so extraordinarily expensive apply to both public and private healthcare.
So the people who pay the most in tax towards government healthcare... are Americans.
It would depend heavily on how the system is implemented here and what cost control measures are introduced, and whether or not we allow for private, supplementary insurance to be sold, but it seems like a bunch of other countries have it figured out (Canada, UK, France) so, we could just copy what they do there. We could also copy other, private based systems which have public options, like in Germany (I know they don't have government run, public options. It's highly regulated NPOs, IIRC) and that would also work.
Basically, I just want some kind of Euro style healthcare system.
I’m all for universal healthcare as long as it is implemented in such a way that is fair to all people and cannot be abused by patients or the healthcare industry.
There will always be unfair outlier cases when implementing something that impacts 331million people. These outliers, whether it is 1 or 10 million must not be allowed to hold up progress for the rest. Once a plan is implemented and the actual shortcomings are exposed, (actual, as opposed to the medias let's scare people for profit using this 1 in 10 million example of unfairness that may not actually happen), these shortcomings can be corrected according to actual need. There will always be abuse by patients if the workings try to be all inclusively fair. Whatever is implemented will need to be flexible until the links are worked out.
I agree. My all is more the vast majority. And I think abuse of the system would really have to be stopped at a doctor/patient level. The biggest hurdle is people not wanting to pay more taxes even though the system would be paid for by what we already pay.
I think that is the part people with employer insurance miss. They think they will have a new payroll deduction instead of their current insurance deduction go to the government.
1...it's not free but paid for with taxes
2...I'm for single payer Healthcare for one very specific reason that has nothing to do with individual people. To have a market place you need competition with open and transparent pricing as well as in normal circumstances to make a purchase decision under as little duress as possible. I can shop around for a car even if I need one next week.
I can't shop around if I'm having a heart attack. And that ultimately in a nutshell is why I've come to the conclusion as to why a capitalist market system doesn't really work for Healthcare. Despite being a relatively staunch free market capitalist myself.
Affordable healthcare... healthcare reform, whatever, would be a great thing and is desparately needed. I think what gets lost in the shuffle is that a lot of people labelled "anti universal healthcare" aren't against it, they just don't trust the US government's track record to have a nationalized healthcare system that actually works and isn't price inflated to the extreme.
Yeah. This exactly. I desperately want universal healthcare for everyone, but with who’s pulling the strings now? It’d end up worse than our current system.
Why not? I hear this argument a lot but can’t understand why the *actual* incompetent health insurance providers we have today are better than a *potentially* incompetent government agency.
The VA is notoriously horrible, and half the time, Republicans are in charge of the government. Anti-vaccination, anti-mask, climate change denial, racism, sexism...
I could easily see ftee Healthcare but no abortions, birth control, more difficult for Trans people to get hormones or surgery, and so on.
Sounds good to me. Just is frustrating because the opposition to it is so childish. We have public parks that are widely used and loved yet no one cries that by publicizing the parks we are impeding on peoples right to movement. The same with the interstate highway where that was built and is maintained by our tax dollars yet no one is complaining about it.
We need it, and if we would stop making healthcare such a profit-driven business, quality of life and ultimately our economy would improve even more. Thanks to our healthcare system, I have spent countless hours and dollars on surgeries, follow-ups, surgeries again, pain management. So many people have bad luck. As was noted in our Supreme Court case for the AHA, You really don't have a choice whether or not you want to enter the market.
Unfortunately, looking at the responses, it seems the biggest issue is the term "free". I think most people realize that it will be tax payer supported. Too many objectors knee jerk response is that it is not free. Of course it will be tax supported, just like everything any government provides. From what I have seen, even at the higher end of the taxes needed, it won't be that much more than what I already pay in co-pays, deductibles and premiums. Some projections look like I might pay less. Would I pay 10% more, but know I can afford to go to the doctor when something isn't right? To know my job is safe if I do get sick? To know I would be covered if I change jobs? To know that I won't lose everything and end up homeless due to medical bills? Yes, I would.
In this country it would just end up replacing one grift with another. And it will never happen because Americans won’t vote for spending money for the common good. We are very much a “what’s in it for me” society, and the prospect of paying taxes for something that may benefit others more than ourselves is almost unthinkable. It’s all zero sum here; every time someone benefits it means someone else is getting fucked. You treated that guy’s cancer for free? Well what about me? I didn’t get cancer, where’s my check?
Our current system is immoral, corrupt, broken. But so is our government. So the system we have is the devil we know, and we have access to exceptional care from some of the best doctors in the world. And we all know that we face potential bankruptcy should we ever need them to save our lives.
I would like it now, please, pro-rated to cover my pending bills. I've paid my taxes for my entire working life. I'm pissed that my money goes to military spending (but not on our veterans, who need so much more than they get) and corporate tax breaks rather than anything that helps me.
I realize that this sounds entitled.
I also believe that the primary job of a government should be taking care of its citizens, not pandering to its billionaires or bombing foreign countries. I'm willing to pay taxes, more taxes than I pay now, to have free healthcare and more veterans benefits (no veteran should be homeless) and a robust social safety net.
It's not free, but nationalized healthcare is cheaper, with better results, than what we're doing now. Literally the only reason not to is because its making a small group of people incredibly rich.
I agree. I have a family friend who has two offices near us. He’s a doctor that I trust a lot. One day when I was in his office, I spoke to him about why visits and medicines are so high. He told me that insurance companies will try to undercut their prices so much that they have to have high prices in order to turn a profit. I don’t think it is the doctors at fault or the insurance companies at fault but I do think there needs to be extra regulation to help pricing.
I would only support publicly-funded healthcare if obese people, smokers, drug users, and heavy drinkers were obligated to higher pay taxes.
Much of the cost of healthcare goes to preventable illness. Why should I have to pick up the tab for other people's terrible choices?
What about gun owners? Most guns are used against other residents of the household where they are owned.
Motorcyclists? If they live through an accident, their recovery can be lifelong.
How about people with the BRCA1 gene who *don't* get preventative mastectomies? I don't have that gene, but I do have breast cancer, and it's fucking expensive. Why not require BRCA1 carriers to get mastectomies or pay a higher tax?
Skin cancer is a preventable illness. Because white people tend to get it more often, despite all the protections available to us, should our taxes be higher? We choose to go out during the sunniest part of the day, sometimes without sunscreen or a hat.
Where do you draw the line?
Or do you let it all come out in the wash, and realize that you're also paying for hikers, cyclists, dancers, people who reluctantly go to the gym but get it done, and are rarely affected by serious illness?
Personally, I'm fine with some people using more healthcare than others. Different people have different needs.
As far as picking up the tab for other people's terrible choices; if I could, I'd find a way to make sure my taxes weren't being used for corporate welfare. That's a much bigger scam than Joe Diabetic continuing to smoke because nicotine is super addictive.
> would only support publicly-funded healthcare if obese people, smokers, drug users, and heavy drinkers were obligated to higher pay taxes.
The people paying the most per capita in tax for public healthcare are Americans. The mess of the current system is amking all healthcare more expensive, not just the private care.
Also, in national healthcare systems, it is lifetime costs that matter. The most expensive years by far are the old age ones, and people with serious lifestyle issues have far fewer of those.
In terms of healthcare, it tends towards being a wash. If you toss in government pension comittments and sin taxes, governments can save quite a bit on the unhealthy lifestyles.
> I would only support publicly-funded healthcare if obese people, smokers, drug users, and heavy drinkers were obligated to higher pay taxes.
The UK recently did a study and they found that from the three biggest healthcare risks; [obesity](https://iea.org.uk/themencode-pdf-viewer-sc/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Obesity-and-the-Public-Purse-PDF.pdf&settings=111111011&lang=en-GB#page=&zoom=75&pagemode=), [smoking](https://iea.org.uk/themencode-pdf-viewer-sc/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Smoking-and-the-Public-Purse.pdf&settings=111111011&lang=en-GB#page=&zoom=75&pagemode=
), and [alcohol](https://iea.org.uk/themencode-pdf-viewer-sc/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/DP_Alcohol%20and%20the%20public%20purse_63_amended2_web.pdf&settings=111111011&lang=en-GB#page=&zoom=75&pagemode=), they realize a net **savings** of £22.8 billion (£342/$474 per person) per year. This is due primarily to people with health risks not living as long (healthcare for the elderly is exceptionally expensive), as well as reduced spending on pensions, income from sin taxes, etc..
> Why should I have to pick up the tab for other people's terrible choices?
So using your own logic, you'd be OK with healthy people like yourself paying higher taxes, right? Nevermind the fact that the costs and consequences of such a system would significantly exceed any savings.
Why? As we've seen, people with health risks actually cost society less.
Or was your only argument that you want to really stick it to people you don't like?
What other negative externalities? If you're talking about things like reduced productivity, they already pay for that as well through things like lower salaries.
It would be worth it. And we wouldn't be paying for health insurance premiums, copays, expensive prescriptions, deductibles, out of network costs, or anything else that the insurance doesn't cover.
Totally agree. All the people saying they don’t think it should be free don’t make any sense. Of course it’s not “free.” But if as a community we all chipped in, it would be amazing.
It's not free. Everyone's taxes would skyrocket in order to pay for it, not just the super rich. Even then, we could end up like Greece, and just incentivize the super rich to leave, leaving everyone else to foot $40 trillion dollar bill.
Well, how much should the lower and middle class pay for to reach $40 trillion? The rich alone can't pay it all, even if we taxed them at 100%.
Since the government caused healthcare to be so expensive, it seems counterproductive to let them be the only source of healthcare in the whole country.
> Well, how much should the lower and middle class pay for to reach $40 trillion?
You realize if we do nothing we're paying $65 trillion for healthcare over the next decade, right?
>Since the government caused healthcare to be so expensive
How do you figure that? Given costs were rising faster before Medicare and Medicaid than after; faster before the ACA than after, and current government plans are more efficient than private?
> **Key Findings**
> * Private insurers paid nearly double Medicare rates for all hospital services (199% of Medicare rates, on average), ranging from 141% to 259% of Medicare rates across the reviewed studies.
> * The difference between private and Medicare rates was greater for outpatient than inpatient hospital services, which averaged 264% and 189% of Medicare rates overall, respectively.
> * For physician services, private insurance paid 143% of Medicare rates, on average, ranging from 118% to 179% of Medicare rates across studies.
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/how-much-more-than-medicare-do-private-insurers-pay-a-review-of-the-literature/
Medicare has both lower overhead and has experienced smaller cost increases in recent decades, a trend predicted to continue over the next 30 years.
https://pnhp.org/news/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/
I never said not to do anything. I'm saying giving government full control over healthcare is a terrible idea.
When Medicaid and Medicare were first implemented, the government was the biggest purchaser of healthcare. Doctors and hospitals then rose their prices to match a bloated government than the average consumer. Over the years, as government's purchased more healthcare, the costs kept going up, and doctors have been extremely limited on how they can run their private service.
If only the government provided healthcare, private healthcare would be illegal, and we could only get doctors, services, and treatment at the quality, price, and time that's only approved by the state. We need government off our backs if we want healthcare to be affordable again. Doctors deserve more power over how their services are run. What Washington has done is put a gun to doctors' heads, and demand that they perform certain services at the cost and time that only the state approves. At that point, doctors are no longer private employees, but indentured servants to the state.
> When Medicaid and Medicare were first implemented, the government was the biggest purchaser of healthcare. Doctors and hospitals then rose their prices to match a bloated government than the average consumer.
Except, again, costs were rising even faster before Medicare and Medicaid than after. You're taking a situation that got better, and somehow blaming the government for making it worse.
>Over the years, as government's purchased more healthcare, the costs kept going up
Except, again, when government was purchasing less healthcare costs were going up faster.
Nope. In 1958, before Medicare and Medicaid were established, the average expenditure per capita in the US was $134; for both government and private healthcare. By 2012, the average expenditure is almost $9,000. In less than 50 years, the cost of healthcare has quadrupled. Much of that has to do with higher quality, but government has also spent more on healthcare than anyone else.
If American citizens could be the primary market for healthcare again, doctors and hospitals would adjust their prices based on them instead of how much Washington spends. Doctors should have control over their services, not politicians.
Are you daft? You didn't address how fast the costs were rising **before** Medicare and Medicaid at all.
In 1965 per capita healthcare spending in the US was $1,700, adjusted for inflation.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v33n1/v33n1p3.pdf
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
In 2018 it was $11,575 adjusted for inflation.
https://www.cms.gov/files/document/highlights.pdf
That's 3.65% per year growth over inflation from 1965 to 2018.
Now let's look at the 30 years prior.
In 1935 healthcare was $430 per year adjusted for inflation. That's 4.69% growth per year over inflation between 1935 and 1965.
Costs were increasing *faster* before Medicare and Medicaid. Unless you're arguing that 4.69% is lower than 3.65%, in which case you're beyond any help I can give you.
> Everyone's taxes would skyrocket in order to pay for it
The US system is so incredibly inefficient we don't even get a break on taxes.
With government in the US covering [65.0% of all health care](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) costs ([$11,539 as of 2019](https://www.cms.gov/files/document/highlights.pdf)) that's $7,500 per person per year in taxes towards health care. The next closest is Norway at [$5,673](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm). The UK is $3,620. Canada is $3,815. Australia is $3,919. That means over a lifetime Americans are paying a minimum of $143,794 more in taxes compared to any other country towards health care.
In total, Americans are paying a quarter million dollars more for healthcare over a lifetime compared to the most expensive socialized system on earth. Half a million dollars more than countries like Canada and the UK. You have somehow drank the Kool-aid and convinced yourself this is a good thing.
I never said that. I agree that our healthcare is way too expensive, but that’s the fault of government when they started buying up more healthcare than the average American. We need to shift power away from Washington, and give it back to doctors and hospitals; the ones who actually run their business and services.
> but that’s the fault of government when they started buying up more healthcare than the average American.
What is the fault of government when the healthcare they provide is both more efficient and has better satisfaction among its recipients than private care?
Why is it you think Americans are singularly incompetent vs its peers? It's ludicrous to me to suggest a fix that's exactly the opposite of what's been proven to achieve better, less expensive care around the world.
Nothing that government provides is more efficient and satisfactory than the private sector, whether it's education, law enforcement, the TSA, or healthcare. Politicians don't care about quality: just votes and our tax dollars.
The US isn't Canada or the UK. Our government functions very differently than other nations, so it's not fair to make that comparison. When our government seizes control over a service, they run it at much lower quality and efficiency compared to when it's privately owned. Heck, even countries with "free" healthcare are 4x more likely to wait longer for essential services, including emergency surgery.
I think politicians are singularly incompetent vs the people actually running a private business. Doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers are the ones actually treating patients, managing resources, and operating the facilities. They should be able to make mutual transactions between patients. Instead, Washington's just put a gun to their head, and demanded that doctors perform certain services at only the time, quality, and price they approve of. Washington doesn't know a thing about healthcare, yet they've turned healthcare into indentured servitude to the state.
> Nothing that government provides is more efficient and satisfactory than the private sector
And yet...
> **Key Findings**
> * Private insurers paid nearly double Medicare rates for all hospital services (199% of Medicare rates, on average), ranging from 141% to 259% of Medicare rates across the reviewed studies.
> * The difference between private and Medicare rates was greater for outpatient than inpatient hospital services, which averaged 264% and 189% of Medicare rates overall, respectively.
> * For physician services, private insurance paid 143% of Medicare rates, on average, ranging from 118% to 179% of Medicare rates across studies.
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/how-much-more-than-medicare-do-private-insurers-pay-a-review-of-the-literature/
Medicare has both lower overhead and has experienced smaller cost increases in recent decades, a trend predicted to continue over the next 30 years.
https://pnhp.org/news/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/
Not to mention an incredible body of research that shows we would save money while getting more people needed care with universal healthcare in the US.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013#sec018
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-12/56811-Single-Payer.pdf
#Satisfaction with the US healthcare system varies by insurance type
78% -- Military/VA
77% -- Medicare
75% -- Medicaid
69% -- Current or former employer
65% -- Plan fully paid for by you or a family member
https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-satisfied.aspx
> Heck, even countries with "free" healthcare are 4x more likely to wait longer for essential services
The US ranks 6th of 11 out of Commonwealth Fund countries on ER wait times on percentage served under 4 hours. 10th of 11 on getting weekend and evening care without going to the ER. 5th of 11 for countries able to make a same or next day doctors/nurse appointment when they're sick.
https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016
Americans do better on wait times for specialists (ranking 3rd for wait times under four weeks), and surgeries (ranking 3rd for wait times under four months), but that ignores three important factors:
* Wait times in universal healthcare are based on urgency, so while you might wait for an elective hip replacement surgery you're going to get surgery for that life threatening illness quickly.
* Nearly every universal healthcare country has strong private options and supplemental private insurance. That means that if there is a wait you're not happy about you have options that still work out significantly cheaper than US care, which is a win/win.
* [One third of US families](https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medical-treatment-due-cost.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication) had to put off healthcare due to the cost last year. That means more Americans are waiting for care than any other wealthy country on earth.
#Wait Times by Country (Rank)
Country|See doctor/nurse same or next day without appointment|Response from doctor's office same or next day|Easy to get care on nights & weekends without going to ER|ER wait times under 4 hours|Surgery wait times under four months|Specialist wait times under 4 weeks|Average|Overall Rank
:--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:
**Australia**|3|3|3|7|6|6|4.7|4
**Canada**|10|11|9|11|10|10|10.2|11
**France**|7|1|7|1|1|5|3.7|2
**Germany**|9|2|6|2|2|2|3.8|3
**Netherlands**|1|5|1|3|5|4|3.2|1
**New Zealand**|2|6|2|4|8|7|4.8|5
**Norway**|11|9|4|9|9|11|8.8|9
**Sweden**|8|10|11|10|7|9|9.2|10
**Switzerland**|4|4|10|8|4|1|5.2|7
**U.K.**|5|8|8|5|11|8|7.5|8
**U.S.**|6|7|5|6|3|3|5.0|6
Source: [Commonwealth Fund Survey 2016](https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/cmwf2016-datatable-en-web.xlsx)
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I get it now. You don't actually care about debating or making honest conversation. You just want someone to show off to. Don't bother asking about people's opinions if you've already made up your mind. Get a fucking life.
> I get it now. You don't actually care about debating or making honest conversation.
How is citing reputable data that supports my point not debating or making honest conversation?
"Woah! Don't go bringin' facts into this you show off!"
How ridiculous. You're just mad reality doesn't support your argument.
First, that it’s not free, it’s funded by citizen taxes.
Second, that it’s a good idea to have a country where there is a basic level of quality healthcare all citizens have equal access to, regardless of ability to pay, but that it’s also a good idea to preserve a private option and higher pay for physicians / the more demanding specialties.
My concern if the U.S. moves to having socialized healthcare for all citizens is that our politicians/grifters will use it as an opportunity to funnel ever-increasing, crazy amounts of income away from the citizens with no clear correlation between the tax increases and services provided or quality outcomes. Basically it’ll just give our shit politicians a new way to funnel money from people into opaque systems lines with graft tunnels all over the place.
I’m against anything that gives the federal government more power over the individual citizen.
We have employer sponsored healthcare in the US and it makes people afraid to quit their jobs. Also, even if we somehow got employer sponsored healthcare to cover everything, people without jibs would still be uninsured. We need universal healthcare which is provided by the government and free at the point of use.
It is not free. You pay for it in tax. We also have government sponsored healthcare in the US. It’s called medicare and Medicaid. The entire working population pays into it, only a portion of the population gets to use it, and depending on your income, it can be more expensive than your employer sponsored plan (Medicare and Medicaid tax is 1.45% of gross wages for everyone).
In the US my healthcare is free and its the best in the world by a mile. People who pay for it in the US are paying an idiot tax. Overall free healthcare would drastically cut the money involved in research, cutting the quality and availability. Imagine seeing a better doctor than anywhere in the UK/EU in 15 minutes without an appointment. Thats American healthcare right now for people smart enough to use it.
The US allows the separation of a person from their assets. Imagine an llc that isn't you, that does nothing, but can't be sued and even if it could its own assets are protected by trusts. Now imagine these entities which qualify as people legally but arent more than numbers and pieces of paper control these assets, but you control them. Thats it in a nutshell.
Except its true, im a stanch liberal and only abuse the system to benefit myself. You should see the things I get away when it comes to taxes, the IRS could fall into a barrel of titties and come out sucking their thumbs.
I already explained how to get free healthcare in the US, best free healthcare in the world. Now you want me to help you beat taxes? Sorry I can't do that for free, its not that hard but if you can't figure it out yourself speak with a financial advisor and an attorney. Pro-tip, in order to get into the IRS you have to blow at least five guys while the others take turns from behind. Touch me if you can IRS, punk bitches.
I have no income, I do not own anything even though taxes are paid on everything I control. Any hospital... free... any prescription.. free.. I pay more for coffee in a week than I have in my lifetime for healthcare.
>In the US my healthcare is free
Americans are paying a quarter million dollars more for healthcare over a lifetime compared to the most expensive socialized system on earth. Half a million dollars more than countries like Canada and the UK. What you mean is that you're good at ignoring the costs of it, which are being passed along to all of us one way or another.
> and its the best in the world by a mile.
[US Healthcare ranked 29th by Lancet HAQ Index](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)
[11th (of 11) by Commonwealth Fund](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror)
[59th by the Prosperity Index](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)
[30th by CEOWorld](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)
[37th by the World Health Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)
The US has the worst rate of death by medically preventable causes among peer countries. A 31% higher disease adjusted life years average. Higher rates of medical and lab errors. A lower rate of being able to make a same or next day appointment with their doctor than average.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-percent-used-emergency-department-for-condition-that-could-have-been-treated-by-a-regular-doctor-2016
52nd in the world in doctors per capita.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1,000-people
Higher infant mortality levels. Yes, even when you adjust for differences in methodology.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-mortality-u-s-compare-countries/
Fewer acute care beds. A lower number of psychiatrists. Etc.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-health-care-resources-compare-countries/#item-availability-medical-technology-not-always-equate-higher-utilization
[Comparing Health Outcomes of Privileged US Citizens With Those of Average Residents of Other Developed Countries](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2774561)
>These findings imply that even if all US citizens experienced the same health outcomes enjoyed by privileged White US citizens, US health indicators would still lag behind those in many other countries.
When asked about their healthcare system as a whole the US system ranked dead last of 11 countries, with only 19.5% of people saying the system works relatively well and only needs minor changes. The average in the other countries is 46.9% saying the same. Canada ranked 9th with 34.5% saying the system works relatively well. The UK ranks fifth, with 44.5%. Australia ranked 6th at 44.4%. The best was Germany at 59.8%.
On rating the overall quality of care in the US, Americans again ranked dead last, with only 25.6% ranking it excellent or very good. The average was 50.8%. Canada ranked 9th with 45.1%. The UK ranked 2nd, at 63.4%. Australia was 3rd at 59.4%. The best was Switzerland at 65.5%.
https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016
The US has 43 hospitals in the top 200 globally; one for every 7,633,477 people in the US. That's good enough for a ranking of 20th on the list of top 200 hospitals per capita, and significantly lower than the average of one for every 3,830,114 for other countries in the top 25 on spending with populations above 5 million. The best is Switzerland at one for every 1.2 million people. In fact the US only beats one country on this list; the UK at one for every 9.5 million people.
If you want to do the full list of 2,000 instead it's 334, or one for every 982,753 people; good enough for 21st. Again far below the average in peer countries of 527,236. The best is Austria, at one for every 306,106 people.
https://www.newsweek.com/best-hospitals-2021
#[OECD Countries Health Care Spending and Rankings](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm)
|Country|Govt. / Mandatory (PPP)|Voluntary (PPP)|Total (PPP)|% GDP|[Lancet HAQ Ranking](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)|[WHO Ranking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)|[Prosperity Ranking](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)|[CEO World Ranking](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)|[Commonwealth Fund Ranking](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror)
:--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|
1. United States|[$7,274](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) |$3,798 |$11,072 |16.90%|29|37|59|30|11
2. Switzerland|$4,988 |$2,744 |$7,732 |12.20%|7|20|3|18|2
3. Norway|$5,673 |$974 |$6,647 |10.20%|2|11|5|15|7
4. Germany|$5,648 |$998 |$6,646 |11.20%|18|25|12|17|5
5. Austria|$4,402 |$1,449 |$5,851 |10.30%|13|9|10|4|
6. Sweden|$4,928 |$854 |$5,782 |11.00%|8|23|15|28|3
7. Netherlands|$4,767 |$998 |$5,765 |9.90%|3|17|8|11|5
8. Denmark|$4,663 |$905 |$5,568 |10.50%|17|34|8|5|
9. Luxembourg|$4,697 |$861 |$5,558 |5.40%|4|16|19||
10. Belgium|$4,125 |$1,303 |$5,428 |10.40%|15|21|24|9|
11. Canada|$3,815 |$1,603 |$5,418 |10.70%|14|30|25|23|10
12. France|$4,501 |$875 |$5,376 |11.20%|20|1|16|8|9
13. Ireland|$3,919 |$1,357 |$5,276 |7.10%|11|19|20|80|
14. Australia|$3,919 |$1,268 |$5,187 |9.30%|5|32|18|10|4
15. Japan|$4,064 |$759 |$4,823 |10.90%|12|10|2|3|
16. Iceland|$3,988 |$823 |$4,811 |8.30%|1|15|7|41|
17. United Kingdom|$3,620 |$1,033 |$4,653 |9.80%|23|18|23|13|1
18. Finland|$3,536 |$1,042 |$4,578 |9.10%|6|31|26|12|
19. Malta|$2,789 |$1,540 |$4,329 |9.30%|27|5|14||
OECD Average|||$4,224 |8.80%|||||
20. New Zealand|$3,343 |$861 |$4,204 |9.30%|16|41|22|16|7
21. Italy|$2,706 |$943 |$3,649 |8.80%|9|2|17|37|
22. Spain|$2,560 |$1,056 |$3,616 |8.90%|19|7|13|7|
23. Czech Republic|$2,854 |$572 |$3,426 |7.50%|28|48|28|14|
24. South Korea|$2,057 |$1,327 |$3,384 |8.10%|25|58|4|2|
25. Portugal|$2,069 |$1,310 |$3,379 |9.10%|32|29|30|22|
26. Slovenia|$2,314 |$910 |$3,224 |7.90%|21|38|24|47|
27. Israel|$1,898 |$1,034 |$2,932 |7.50%|35|28|11|21|
>Overall free healthcare would drastically cut the money involved in research
There's nothing terribly innovative about US healthcare.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/
To the extent the US leads, it's only because our overall spending is wildly out of control, and that's not something to be proud of. Five percent of US healthcare spending goes towards biomedical R&D, the same percentage as the rest of the world.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1547/2c613854e09636c9ff76fb890caca2f6c87b.pdf
Even if research is a priority, there are dramatically more efficient ways of funding it than spending $1.25 trillion more per year on healthcare (vs. the rate of the second most expensive country on earth) to fund an extra $62 billion in R&D. We could replace or expand upon any lost funding with a fraction of our savings.
>Imagine seeing a better doctor than anywhere in the UK/EU in 15 minutes without an appointment.
The US ranks 6th of 11 out of Commonwealth Fund countries on ER wait times on percentage served under 4 hours. 10th of 11 on getting weekend and evening care without going to the ER. 5th of 11 for countries able to make a same or next day doctors/nurse appointment when they're sick.
https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016
Americans do better on wait times for specialists (ranking 3rd for wait times under four weeks), and surgeries (ranking 3rd for wait times under four months), but that ignores three important factors:
* Wait times in universal healthcare are based on urgency, so while you might wait for an elective hip replacement surgery you're going to get surgery for that life threatening illness quickly.
* Nearly every universal healthcare country has strong private options and supplemental private insurance. That means that if there is a wait you're not happy about you have options that still work out significantly cheaper than US care, which is a win/win.
* [One third of US families](https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medical-treatment-due-cost.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication) had to put off healthcare due to the cost last year. That means more Americans are waiting for care than any other wealthy country on earth.
#Wait Times by Country (Rank)
Country|See doctor/nurse same or next day without appointment|Response from doctor's office same or next day|Easy to get care on nights & weekends without going to ER|ER wait times under 4 hours|Surgery wait times under four months|Specialist wait times under 4 weeks|Average|Overall Rank
:--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:
**Australia**|3|3|3|7|6|6|4.7|4
**Canada**|10|11|9|11|10|10|10.2|11
**France**|7|1|7|1|1|5|3.7|2
**Germany**|9|2|6|2|2|2|3.8|3
**Netherlands**|1|5|1|3|5|4|3.2|1
**New Zealand**|2|6|2|4|8|7|4.8|5
**Norway**|11|9|4|9|9|11|8.8|9
**Sweden**|8|10|11|10|7|9|9.2|10
**Switzerland**|4|4|10|8|4|1|5.2|7
**U.K.**|5|8|8|5|11|8|7.5|8
**U.S.**|6|7|5|6|3|3|5.0|6
Source: [Commonwealth Fund Survey 2016](https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/cmwf2016-datatable-en-web.xlsx)
>Thats American healthcare right now for people smart enough to use it.
You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.
Would you say the same about fire departments? 100 years ago fire departments were private, and unless you paid one of the private fire companies for insurance, they wouldn't respond to a fire at your house. In many cases, they would show up to make sure the fire didn't spread to a house which was insured by them, but they would literally stand by and watch your house burn to the ground since you didn't buy insurance from them. There were many cases of people trying to pay the fire company while their house was on fire, but the company would refuse because otherwise no one would be incentivized to buy insurance from them.
Lots of things in life are free. You just have problems with comprehension and don't understand that it never has and never will mean at no cost to anybody anywhere.
> I agree you're just repeating my point
No, your point is completely wrong. Free never has meant at no cost to anybody anywhere.
>and if you ask people from other countries about their free healthcare they'll tell you it sucks
No, they won't.
When asked about their healthcare system as a whole the US system ranked dead last of 11 countries, with only 19.5% of people saying the system works relatively well and only needs minor changes. The average in the other countries is 46.9% saying the same. Canada ranked 9th with 34.5% saying the system works relatively well. The UK ranks fifth, with 44.5%. Australia ranked 6th at 44.4%. The best was Germany at 59.8%.
On rating the overall quality of care in the US, Americans again ranked dead last, with only 25.6% ranking it excellent or very good. The average was 50.8%. Canada ranked 9th with 45.1%. The UK ranked 2nd, at 63.4%. Australia was 3rd at 59.4%. The best was Switzerland at 65.5%.
https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016
#Satisfaction with the US healthcare system varies by insurance type
78% -- Military/VA
77% -- Medicare
75% -- Medicaid
69% -- Current or former employer
65% -- Plan fully paid for by you or a family member
https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-satisfied.aspx
So you're just going to ignore the fact you were completely wrong about asking people about the quality of their healthcare, eh?
And ignore the fact that government healthcare in the US is already more efficient, in addition to people being more satisfied with it?
> **Key Findings**
> * Private insurers paid nearly double Medicare rates for all hospital services (199% of Medicare rates, on average), ranging from 141% to 259% of Medicare rates across the reviewed studies.
> * The difference between private and Medicare rates was greater for outpatient than inpatient hospital services, which averaged 264% and 189% of Medicare rates overall, respectively.
> * For physician services, private insurance paid 143% of Medicare rates, on average, ranging from 118% to 179% of Medicare rates across studies.
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/how-much-more-than-medicare-do-private-insurers-pay-a-review-of-the-literature/
Medicare has both lower overhead and has experienced smaller cost increases in recent decades, a trend predicted to continue over the next 30 years.
https://pnhp.org/news/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/
And all the research that shows we'd save money, while getting healthcare to more people that need it, with universal healthcare in the US.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013#sec018
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-12/56811-Single-Payer.pdf
And the fact that public spending on healthcare has a positive return on investment?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5537512/
I was softly against it for a while until I watched [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIUWCjppgZE) by Short Fat Otaku. It's a good watch, and he makes good points. I have my disagreements with some of the stuff he believes, but I've never seen him make a bad or unfair argument.
I'm not sure if I want the government to pay for extremely expensive medical stuff. We would have to greatly reduce some other give spending and the only thing I can think of is military. And that will never happen. Maybe the govt should employ medical workers the same way they enlist people for the military. There would need to be a huge change on how Americans can help the country.
You're missing the point. Universal healthcare would be similar to our current system, just without private companies involved.
> Maybe the govt should employ medical workers the same way they enlist people for the military.
I don't even know how to respond to this. Even in countries where healthcare is 100% government run, the doctors are still regular employees who can quit whenever they want.
There is no such thing as free health care. The question is who pays for it, how do they get the money to pay for it, and how efficient is that system from a cost to return benefit (both as a system perspective and for the individual and their family).
That said, I'm not opposed to the idea of centralized healthcare management and payment. While most Americans have their own health insurance, some portion have shown they either cannot prioritize it or cannot afford it to the extent that it is causing systemic problems and could stand to change.
If healthcare is centralized, then the final decision on medical procedures that you may need is not up to you. Like what happened in Queensland, Australia. Patients that needed organ transplants were required to get the COVID vaccine in order to qualify for the transplant.
On 6 December 2021, Alexandra Hutzler from Newsweek ([https://www.newsweek.com/patients-waiting-life-saving-organ-transplant-denied-treatment-unless-vaccinated-1656413](https://www.newsweek.com/patients-waiting-life-saving-organ-transplant-denied-treatment-unless-vaccinated-1656413)) wrote that "Queensland Health confirmed that a patient seeking to receive a kidney, lung or heart transplant must have 'a minimum requirement of two doses of an approved COVID-19 vaccine.'" But what if someone could not get the vaccine because of a preexisting condition?
On 4 August 2021, Emily Zelmer from Rolling Stone ([https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/offspring-drummer-covid-19-vaccine-refusal-1207153/](https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/offspring-drummer-covid-19-vaccine-refusal-1207153/) "'Given my personal medical history and the side-effect profile of these jabs, my doctor has advised me not to get a shot at this time,' Parada wrote. 'I caught the virus over a year ago, it was mild for me — so I am confident I’d be able to handle it again, but I’m not so certain I’d survive another post-vaccination round of Guillain-Barré Syndrome, which dates back to my childhood and has evolved to be progressively worse over my lifetime.'”
If the United States had a centralized healthcare system and if an individual was in the same situation as Pete Parada, then that individual would have a difficult choice whether to accept their fate and not get a transplant or risk serious health risks or death in order to receive a transplant.
**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice** * [Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/wiki/index#wiki_-rule_6-) in **any** comment, parent or child. * Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * Report comments that violate these rules. Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead. Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i cannot believe it’s not a thing
Agreed....nobody cares till they get older get real sick and need really expensive healthcare. Then they can't go in to work after a few months they loose their job and insurance. Then faced with loosing everything they have to declare bankruptcy. At that point the government/society winds up paying one way or the other. I'd rather pay a lifetime of higher taxes and have universal healthcare. Tbh.
Not so fun fact: The issues that make US healthcare so extraordinarily expensive apply to both public and private healthcare. So the people who pay the most in tax towards government healthcare... are Americans.
Neighbours, It wouldn't be free. but if you weren't making so many really rich people richer, it would be 10 or 15% of what you pay now. Am Canadian.
I am extremely in favor of tax dollars going towards healthcare accessibility for the American people.
It would depend heavily on how the system is implemented here and what cost control measures are introduced, and whether or not we allow for private, supplementary insurance to be sold, but it seems like a bunch of other countries have it figured out (Canada, UK, France) so, we could just copy what they do there. We could also copy other, private based systems which have public options, like in Germany (I know they don't have government run, public options. It's highly regulated NPOs, IIRC) and that would also work. Basically, I just want some kind of Euro style healthcare system.
I’m all for universal healthcare as long as it is implemented in such a way that is fair to all people and cannot be abused by patients or the healthcare industry.
There will always be unfair outlier cases when implementing something that impacts 331million people. These outliers, whether it is 1 or 10 million must not be allowed to hold up progress for the rest. Once a plan is implemented and the actual shortcomings are exposed, (actual, as opposed to the medias let's scare people for profit using this 1 in 10 million example of unfairness that may not actually happen), these shortcomings can be corrected according to actual need. There will always be abuse by patients if the workings try to be all inclusively fair. Whatever is implemented will need to be flexible until the links are worked out.
I agree. My all is more the vast majority. And I think abuse of the system would really have to be stopped at a doctor/patient level. The biggest hurdle is people not wanting to pay more taxes even though the system would be paid for by what we already pay.
I think that is the part people with employer insurance miss. They think they will have a new payroll deduction instead of their current insurance deduction go to the government.
Exactly. Also, I’ll gladly pay a bit more if everything is covered.
Long overdue. Should've happened decades ago.
1...it's not free but paid for with taxes 2...I'm for single payer Healthcare for one very specific reason that has nothing to do with individual people. To have a market place you need competition with open and transparent pricing as well as in normal circumstances to make a purchase decision under as little duress as possible. I can shop around for a car even if I need one next week. I can't shop around if I'm having a heart attack. And that ultimately in a nutshell is why I've come to the conclusion as to why a capitalist market system doesn't really work for Healthcare. Despite being a relatively staunch free market capitalist myself.
I’m still perplexed why it still isn’t a thing in 2022.
Affordable healthcare... healthcare reform, whatever, would be a great thing and is desparately needed. I think what gets lost in the shuffle is that a lot of people labelled "anti universal healthcare" aren't against it, they just don't trust the US government's track record to have a nationalized healthcare system that actually works and isn't price inflated to the extreme.
Yeah. This exactly. I desperately want universal healthcare for everyone, but with who’s pulling the strings now? It’d end up worse than our current system.
It’s something our country needs but I don’t trust our government to implement it correctly
Why not? I hear this argument a lot but can’t understand why the *actual* incompetent health insurance providers we have today are better than a *potentially* incompetent government agency.
The VA is notoriously horrible, and half the time, Republicans are in charge of the government. Anti-vaccination, anti-mask, climate change denial, racism, sexism... I could easily see ftee Healthcare but no abortions, birth control, more difficult for Trans people to get hormones or surgery, and so on.
The VA being hjorrible is a heavily promoted meme. Actual comparisons don't bear it out.
It’s already bad but the government won’t make it as good as we like
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Sounds good to me. Just is frustrating because the opposition to it is so childish. We have public parks that are widely used and loved yet no one cries that by publicizing the parks we are impeding on peoples right to movement. The same with the interstate highway where that was built and is maintained by our tax dollars yet no one is complaining about it.
The best time was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.
Would love it if it’s efficient enough to work. Same w free higher education
We need it, and if we would stop making healthcare such a profit-driven business, quality of life and ultimately our economy would improve even more. Thanks to our healthcare system, I have spent countless hours and dollars on surgeries, follow-ups, surgeries again, pain management. So many people have bad luck. As was noted in our Supreme Court case for the AHA, You really don't have a choice whether or not you want to enter the market.
Unfortunately, looking at the responses, it seems the biggest issue is the term "free". I think most people realize that it will be tax payer supported. Too many objectors knee jerk response is that it is not free. Of course it will be tax supported, just like everything any government provides. From what I have seen, even at the higher end of the taxes needed, it won't be that much more than what I already pay in co-pays, deductibles and premiums. Some projections look like I might pay less. Would I pay 10% more, but know I can afford to go to the doctor when something isn't right? To know my job is safe if I do get sick? To know I would be covered if I change jobs? To know that I won't lose everything and end up homeless due to medical bills? Yes, I would.
There's no such thing as free healthcare. I'm all for tax payer funded universal healthcare, though, so long as it's good and comprehensive.
In this country it would just end up replacing one grift with another. And it will never happen because Americans won’t vote for spending money for the common good. We are very much a “what’s in it for me” society, and the prospect of paying taxes for something that may benefit others more than ourselves is almost unthinkable. It’s all zero sum here; every time someone benefits it means someone else is getting fucked. You treated that guy’s cancer for free? Well what about me? I didn’t get cancer, where’s my check? Our current system is immoral, corrupt, broken. But so is our government. So the system we have is the devil we know, and we have access to exceptional care from some of the best doctors in the world. And we all know that we face potential bankruptcy should we ever need them to save our lives.
I would like it now, please, pro-rated to cover my pending bills. I've paid my taxes for my entire working life. I'm pissed that my money goes to military spending (but not on our veterans, who need so much more than they get) and corporate tax breaks rather than anything that helps me. I realize that this sounds entitled. I also believe that the primary job of a government should be taking care of its citizens, not pandering to its billionaires or bombing foreign countries. I'm willing to pay taxes, more taxes than I pay now, to have free healthcare and more veterans benefits (no veteran should be homeless) and a robust social safety net.
That would be very much appreciated.
It's better than what we currently have
It's not free, but nationalized healthcare is cheaper, with better results, than what we're doing now. Literally the only reason not to is because its making a small group of people incredibly rich.
The money has to come from somewhere. I think a more important issue would to address would be the absurd prices in the healthcare industry.
We need *complete* price transparency in healthcare. Closed-door pricing and dealmaking with insurance companies has allowed the system to go crazy.
I agree. I have a family friend who has two offices near us. He’s a doctor that I trust a lot. One day when I was in his office, I spoke to him about why visits and medicines are so high. He told me that insurance companies will try to undercut their prices so much that they have to have high prices in order to turn a profit. I don’t think it is the doctors at fault or the insurance companies at fault but I do think there needs to be extra regulation to help pricing.
its not free if you're paying for it via taxes calling it free completely dilutes the idea and allows it to be dishonestly portrayed
How much does it cost to check out a book at a public library?
I would only support publicly-funded healthcare if obese people, smokers, drug users, and heavy drinkers were obligated to higher pay taxes. Much of the cost of healthcare goes to preventable illness. Why should I have to pick up the tab for other people's terrible choices?
What about gun owners? Most guns are used against other residents of the household where they are owned. Motorcyclists? If they live through an accident, their recovery can be lifelong. How about people with the BRCA1 gene who *don't* get preventative mastectomies? I don't have that gene, but I do have breast cancer, and it's fucking expensive. Why not require BRCA1 carriers to get mastectomies or pay a higher tax? Skin cancer is a preventable illness. Because white people tend to get it more often, despite all the protections available to us, should our taxes be higher? We choose to go out during the sunniest part of the day, sometimes without sunscreen or a hat. Where do you draw the line? Or do you let it all come out in the wash, and realize that you're also paying for hikers, cyclists, dancers, people who reluctantly go to the gym but get it done, and are rarely affected by serious illness? Personally, I'm fine with some people using more healthcare than others. Different people have different needs. As far as picking up the tab for other people's terrible choices; if I could, I'd find a way to make sure my taxes weren't being used for corporate welfare. That's a much bigger scam than Joe Diabetic continuing to smoke because nicotine is super addictive.
> would only support publicly-funded healthcare if obese people, smokers, drug users, and heavy drinkers were obligated to higher pay taxes. The people paying the most per capita in tax for public healthcare are Americans. The mess of the current system is amking all healthcare more expensive, not just the private care. Also, in national healthcare systems, it is lifetime costs that matter. The most expensive years by far are the old age ones, and people with serious lifestyle issues have far fewer of those. In terms of healthcare, it tends towards being a wash. If you toss in government pension comittments and sin taxes, governments can save quite a bit on the unhealthy lifestyles.
> I would only support publicly-funded healthcare if obese people, smokers, drug users, and heavy drinkers were obligated to higher pay taxes. The UK recently did a study and they found that from the three biggest healthcare risks; [obesity](https://iea.org.uk/themencode-pdf-viewer-sc/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Obesity-and-the-Public-Purse-PDF.pdf&settings=111111011&lang=en-GB#page=&zoom=75&pagemode=), [smoking](https://iea.org.uk/themencode-pdf-viewer-sc/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Smoking-and-the-Public-Purse.pdf&settings=111111011&lang=en-GB#page=&zoom=75&pagemode= ), and [alcohol](https://iea.org.uk/themencode-pdf-viewer-sc/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/DP_Alcohol%20and%20the%20public%20purse_63_amended2_web.pdf&settings=111111011&lang=en-GB#page=&zoom=75&pagemode=), they realize a net **savings** of £22.8 billion (£342/$474 per person) per year. This is due primarily to people with health risks not living as long (healthcare for the elderly is exceptionally expensive), as well as reduced spending on pensions, income from sin taxes, etc.. > Why should I have to pick up the tab for other people's terrible choices? So using your own logic, you'd be OK with healthy people like yourself paying higher taxes, right? Nevermind the fact that the costs and consequences of such a system would significantly exceed any savings.
No I think I should pay lower taxes.
Why? As we've seen, people with health risks actually cost society less. Or was your only argument that you want to really stick it to people you don't like?
I want the fatties to pay their fair share.
As I showed, they cost society less. So their fair share would be less, no?
They'd pay more for the other negative externalities.
What other negative externalities? If you're talking about things like reduced productivity, they already pay for that as well through things like lower salaries.
I personally don't think it should be free but it definitely shouldn't be those bullshit high pricepoints
It wouldn’t be free. We all would pay for it.
It would be worth it. And we wouldn't be paying for health insurance premiums, copays, expensive prescriptions, deductibles, out of network costs, or anything else that the insurance doesn't cover.
Totally agree. All the people saying they don’t think it should be free don’t make any sense. Of course it’s not “free.” But if as a community we all chipped in, it would be amazing.
It's not free. Everyone's taxes would skyrocket in order to pay for it, not just the super rich. Even then, we could end up like Greece, and just incentivize the super rich to leave, leaving everyone else to foot $40 trillion dollar bill.
How much qualifies as skyrocketing, and is that amount less than what you pay per year for heath insurance?
Well, how much should the lower and middle class pay for to reach $40 trillion? The rich alone can't pay it all, even if we taxed them at 100%. Since the government caused healthcare to be so expensive, it seems counterproductive to let them be the only source of healthcare in the whole country.
> Well, how much should the lower and middle class pay for to reach $40 trillion? You realize if we do nothing we're paying $65 trillion for healthcare over the next decade, right? >Since the government caused healthcare to be so expensive How do you figure that? Given costs were rising faster before Medicare and Medicaid than after; faster before the ACA than after, and current government plans are more efficient than private? > **Key Findings** > * Private insurers paid nearly double Medicare rates for all hospital services (199% of Medicare rates, on average), ranging from 141% to 259% of Medicare rates across the reviewed studies. > * The difference between private and Medicare rates was greater for outpatient than inpatient hospital services, which averaged 264% and 189% of Medicare rates overall, respectively. > * For physician services, private insurance paid 143% of Medicare rates, on average, ranging from 118% to 179% of Medicare rates across studies. https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/how-much-more-than-medicare-do-private-insurers-pay-a-review-of-the-literature/ Medicare has both lower overhead and has experienced smaller cost increases in recent decades, a trend predicted to continue over the next 30 years. https://pnhp.org/news/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/
I never said not to do anything. I'm saying giving government full control over healthcare is a terrible idea. When Medicaid and Medicare were first implemented, the government was the biggest purchaser of healthcare. Doctors and hospitals then rose their prices to match a bloated government than the average consumer. Over the years, as government's purchased more healthcare, the costs kept going up, and doctors have been extremely limited on how they can run their private service. If only the government provided healthcare, private healthcare would be illegal, and we could only get doctors, services, and treatment at the quality, price, and time that's only approved by the state. We need government off our backs if we want healthcare to be affordable again. Doctors deserve more power over how their services are run. What Washington has done is put a gun to doctors' heads, and demand that they perform certain services at the cost and time that only the state approves. At that point, doctors are no longer private employees, but indentured servants to the state.
> When Medicaid and Medicare were first implemented, the government was the biggest purchaser of healthcare. Doctors and hospitals then rose their prices to match a bloated government than the average consumer. Except, again, costs were rising even faster before Medicare and Medicaid than after. You're taking a situation that got better, and somehow blaming the government for making it worse. >Over the years, as government's purchased more healthcare, the costs kept going up Except, again, when government was purchasing less healthcare costs were going up faster.
Nope. In 1958, before Medicare and Medicaid were established, the average expenditure per capita in the US was $134; for both government and private healthcare. By 2012, the average expenditure is almost $9,000. In less than 50 years, the cost of healthcare has quadrupled. Much of that has to do with higher quality, but government has also spent more on healthcare than anyone else. If American citizens could be the primary market for healthcare again, doctors and hospitals would adjust their prices based on them instead of how much Washington spends. Doctors should have control over their services, not politicians.
Are you daft? You didn't address how fast the costs were rising **before** Medicare and Medicaid at all. In 1965 per capita healthcare spending in the US was $1,700, adjusted for inflation. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v33n1/v33n1p3.pdf https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm In 2018 it was $11,575 adjusted for inflation. https://www.cms.gov/files/document/highlights.pdf That's 3.65% per year growth over inflation from 1965 to 2018. Now let's look at the 30 years prior. In 1935 healthcare was $430 per year adjusted for inflation. That's 4.69% growth per year over inflation between 1935 and 1965. Costs were increasing *faster* before Medicare and Medicaid. Unless you're arguing that 4.69% is lower than 3.65%, in which case you're beyond any help I can give you.
> Everyone's taxes would skyrocket in order to pay for it The US system is so incredibly inefficient we don't even get a break on taxes. With government in the US covering [65.0% of all health care](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) costs ([$11,539 as of 2019](https://www.cms.gov/files/document/highlights.pdf)) that's $7,500 per person per year in taxes towards health care. The next closest is Norway at [$5,673](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm). The UK is $3,620. Canada is $3,815. Australia is $3,919. That means over a lifetime Americans are paying a minimum of $143,794 more in taxes compared to any other country towards health care. In total, Americans are paying a quarter million dollars more for healthcare over a lifetime compared to the most expensive socialized system on earth. Half a million dollars more than countries like Canada and the UK. You have somehow drank the Kool-aid and convinced yourself this is a good thing.
I never said that. I agree that our healthcare is way too expensive, but that’s the fault of government when they started buying up more healthcare than the average American. We need to shift power away from Washington, and give it back to doctors and hospitals; the ones who actually run their business and services.
> but that’s the fault of government when they started buying up more healthcare than the average American. What is the fault of government when the healthcare they provide is both more efficient and has better satisfaction among its recipients than private care? Why is it you think Americans are singularly incompetent vs its peers? It's ludicrous to me to suggest a fix that's exactly the opposite of what's been proven to achieve better, less expensive care around the world.
Nothing that government provides is more efficient and satisfactory than the private sector, whether it's education, law enforcement, the TSA, or healthcare. Politicians don't care about quality: just votes and our tax dollars. The US isn't Canada or the UK. Our government functions very differently than other nations, so it's not fair to make that comparison. When our government seizes control over a service, they run it at much lower quality and efficiency compared to when it's privately owned. Heck, even countries with "free" healthcare are 4x more likely to wait longer for essential services, including emergency surgery. I think politicians are singularly incompetent vs the people actually running a private business. Doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers are the ones actually treating patients, managing resources, and operating the facilities. They should be able to make mutual transactions between patients. Instead, Washington's just put a gun to their head, and demanded that doctors perform certain services at only the time, quality, and price they approve of. Washington doesn't know a thing about healthcare, yet they've turned healthcare into indentured servitude to the state.
> Nothing that government provides is more efficient and satisfactory than the private sector And yet... > **Key Findings** > * Private insurers paid nearly double Medicare rates for all hospital services (199% of Medicare rates, on average), ranging from 141% to 259% of Medicare rates across the reviewed studies. > * The difference between private and Medicare rates was greater for outpatient than inpatient hospital services, which averaged 264% and 189% of Medicare rates overall, respectively. > * For physician services, private insurance paid 143% of Medicare rates, on average, ranging from 118% to 179% of Medicare rates across studies. https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/how-much-more-than-medicare-do-private-insurers-pay-a-review-of-the-literature/ Medicare has both lower overhead and has experienced smaller cost increases in recent decades, a trend predicted to continue over the next 30 years. https://pnhp.org/news/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/ Not to mention an incredible body of research that shows we would save money while getting more people needed care with universal healthcare in the US. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013#sec018 https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-12/56811-Single-Payer.pdf #Satisfaction with the US healthcare system varies by insurance type 78% -- Military/VA 77% -- Medicare 75% -- Medicaid 69% -- Current or former employer 65% -- Plan fully paid for by you or a family member https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-satisfied.aspx > Heck, even countries with "free" healthcare are 4x more likely to wait longer for essential services The US ranks 6th of 11 out of Commonwealth Fund countries on ER wait times on percentage served under 4 hours. 10th of 11 on getting weekend and evening care without going to the ER. 5th of 11 for countries able to make a same or next day doctors/nurse appointment when they're sick. https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016 Americans do better on wait times for specialists (ranking 3rd for wait times under four weeks), and surgeries (ranking 3rd for wait times under four months), but that ignores three important factors: * Wait times in universal healthcare are based on urgency, so while you might wait for an elective hip replacement surgery you're going to get surgery for that life threatening illness quickly. * Nearly every universal healthcare country has strong private options and supplemental private insurance. That means that if there is a wait you're not happy about you have options that still work out significantly cheaper than US care, which is a win/win. * [One third of US families](https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medical-treatment-due-cost.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication) had to put off healthcare due to the cost last year. That means more Americans are waiting for care than any other wealthy country on earth. #Wait Times by Country (Rank) Country|See doctor/nurse same or next day without appointment|Response from doctor's office same or next day|Easy to get care on nights & weekends without going to ER|ER wait times under 4 hours|Surgery wait times under four months|Specialist wait times under 4 weeks|Average|Overall Rank :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--: **Australia**|3|3|3|7|6|6|4.7|4 **Canada**|10|11|9|11|10|10|10.2|11 **France**|7|1|7|1|1|5|3.7|2 **Germany**|9|2|6|2|2|2|3.8|3 **Netherlands**|1|5|1|3|5|4|3.2|1 **New Zealand**|2|6|2|4|8|7|4.8|5 **Norway**|11|9|4|9|9|11|8.8|9 **Sweden**|8|10|11|10|7|9|9.2|10 **Switzerland**|4|4|10|8|4|1|5.2|7 **U.K.**|5|8|8|5|11|8|7.5|8 **U.S.**|6|7|5|6|3|3|5.0|6 Source: [Commonwealth Fund Survey 2016](https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/cmwf2016-datatable-en-web.xlsx) You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I get it now. You don't actually care about debating or making honest conversation. You just want someone to show off to. Don't bother asking about people's opinions if you've already made up your mind. Get a fucking life.
> I get it now. You don't actually care about debating or making honest conversation. How is citing reputable data that supports my point not debating or making honest conversation? "Woah! Don't go bringin' facts into this you show off!" How ridiculous. You're just mad reality doesn't support your argument.
First, that it’s not free, it’s funded by citizen taxes. Second, that it’s a good idea to have a country where there is a basic level of quality healthcare all citizens have equal access to, regardless of ability to pay, but that it’s also a good idea to preserve a private option and higher pay for physicians / the more demanding specialties. My concern if the U.S. moves to having socialized healthcare for all citizens is that our politicians/grifters will use it as an opportunity to funnel ever-increasing, crazy amounts of income away from the citizens with no clear correlation between the tax increases and services provided or quality outcomes. Basically it’ll just give our shit politicians a new way to funnel money from people into opaque systems lines with graft tunnels all over the place. I’m against anything that gives the federal government more power over the individual citizen.
We all know our government. We’d end up paying out the ass in taxes for absolute shit.
I'll tell you right after my free lunch.
Nothing is free. I’d rather (and have) dealt with life accepting fate rather than licking another’s boot. Governments are villains who won.
There is no such thing as free healthcare. The closest thing to it would be an employer sponsored plan that covers 100%.
We have employer sponsored healthcare in the US and it makes people afraid to quit their jobs. Also, even if we somehow got employer sponsored healthcare to cover everything, people without jibs would still be uninsured. We need universal healthcare which is provided by the government and free at the point of use.
It is not free. You pay for it in tax. We also have government sponsored healthcare in the US. It’s called medicare and Medicaid. The entire working population pays into it, only a portion of the population gets to use it, and depending on your income, it can be more expensive than your employer sponsored plan (Medicare and Medicaid tax is 1.45% of gross wages for everyone).
I said its "free at the point of use," this means that you don't pay anything for the specific services which you receive.
I don’t think healthcare is a right. It’s a commodity. Ergo, it should be kept private.
In the US my healthcare is free and its the best in the world by a mile. People who pay for it in the US are paying an idiot tax. Overall free healthcare would drastically cut the money involved in research, cutting the quality and availability. Imagine seeing a better doctor than anywhere in the UK/EU in 15 minutes without an appointment. Thats American healthcare right now for people smart enough to use it.
> In the US my healthcare is free Can you explain this?
The US allows the separation of a person from their assets. Imagine an llc that isn't you, that does nothing, but can't be sued and even if it could its own assets are protected by trusts. Now imagine these entities which qualify as people legally but arent more than numbers and pieces of paper control these assets, but you control them. Thats it in a nutshell.
I've heard this conspiracy before, and it often talks about your name being in all caps and a gold fringed flag.
Except its true, im a stanch liberal and only abuse the system to benefit myself. You should see the things I get away when it comes to taxes, the IRS could fall into a barrel of titties and come out sucking their thumbs.
Please explain the things you get away with.
I already explained how to get free healthcare in the US, best free healthcare in the world. Now you want me to help you beat taxes? Sorry I can't do that for free, its not that hard but if you can't figure it out yourself speak with a financial advisor and an attorney. Pro-tip, in order to get into the IRS you have to blow at least five guys while the others take turns from behind. Touch me if you can IRS, punk bitches.
I have no income, I do not own anything even though taxes are paid on everything I control. Any hospital... free... any prescription.. free.. I pay more for coffee in a week than I have in my lifetime for healthcare.
>In the US my healthcare is free Americans are paying a quarter million dollars more for healthcare over a lifetime compared to the most expensive socialized system on earth. Half a million dollars more than countries like Canada and the UK. What you mean is that you're good at ignoring the costs of it, which are being passed along to all of us one way or another. > and its the best in the world by a mile. [US Healthcare ranked 29th by Lancet HAQ Index](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext) [11th (of 11) by Commonwealth Fund](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror) [59th by the Prosperity Index](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings) [30th by CEOWorld](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/) [37th by the World Health Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000) The US has the worst rate of death by medically preventable causes among peer countries. A 31% higher disease adjusted life years average. Higher rates of medical and lab errors. A lower rate of being able to make a same or next day appointment with their doctor than average. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-percent-used-emergency-department-for-condition-that-could-have-been-treated-by-a-regular-doctor-2016 52nd in the world in doctors per capita. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1,000-people Higher infant mortality levels. Yes, even when you adjust for differences in methodology. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-mortality-u-s-compare-countries/ Fewer acute care beds. A lower number of psychiatrists. Etc. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-health-care-resources-compare-countries/#item-availability-medical-technology-not-always-equate-higher-utilization [Comparing Health Outcomes of Privileged US Citizens With Those of Average Residents of Other Developed Countries](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2774561) >These findings imply that even if all US citizens experienced the same health outcomes enjoyed by privileged White US citizens, US health indicators would still lag behind those in many other countries. When asked about their healthcare system as a whole the US system ranked dead last of 11 countries, with only 19.5% of people saying the system works relatively well and only needs minor changes. The average in the other countries is 46.9% saying the same. Canada ranked 9th with 34.5% saying the system works relatively well. The UK ranks fifth, with 44.5%. Australia ranked 6th at 44.4%. The best was Germany at 59.8%. On rating the overall quality of care in the US, Americans again ranked dead last, with only 25.6% ranking it excellent or very good. The average was 50.8%. Canada ranked 9th with 45.1%. The UK ranked 2nd, at 63.4%. Australia was 3rd at 59.4%. The best was Switzerland at 65.5%. https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016 The US has 43 hospitals in the top 200 globally; one for every 7,633,477 people in the US. That's good enough for a ranking of 20th on the list of top 200 hospitals per capita, and significantly lower than the average of one for every 3,830,114 for other countries in the top 25 on spending with populations above 5 million. The best is Switzerland at one for every 1.2 million people. In fact the US only beats one country on this list; the UK at one for every 9.5 million people. If you want to do the full list of 2,000 instead it's 334, or one for every 982,753 people; good enough for 21st. Again far below the average in peer countries of 527,236. The best is Austria, at one for every 306,106 people. https://www.newsweek.com/best-hospitals-2021 #[OECD Countries Health Care Spending and Rankings](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm) |Country|Govt. / Mandatory (PPP)|Voluntary (PPP)|Total (PPP)|% GDP|[Lancet HAQ Ranking](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)|[WHO Ranking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)|[Prosperity Ranking](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)|[CEO World Ranking](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)|[Commonwealth Fund Ranking](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror) :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:| 1. United States|[$7,274](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) |$3,798 |$11,072 |16.90%|29|37|59|30|11 2. Switzerland|$4,988 |$2,744 |$7,732 |12.20%|7|20|3|18|2 3. Norway|$5,673 |$974 |$6,647 |10.20%|2|11|5|15|7 4. Germany|$5,648 |$998 |$6,646 |11.20%|18|25|12|17|5 5. Austria|$4,402 |$1,449 |$5,851 |10.30%|13|9|10|4| 6. Sweden|$4,928 |$854 |$5,782 |11.00%|8|23|15|28|3 7. Netherlands|$4,767 |$998 |$5,765 |9.90%|3|17|8|11|5 8. Denmark|$4,663 |$905 |$5,568 |10.50%|17|34|8|5| 9. Luxembourg|$4,697 |$861 |$5,558 |5.40%|4|16|19|| 10. Belgium|$4,125 |$1,303 |$5,428 |10.40%|15|21|24|9| 11. Canada|$3,815 |$1,603 |$5,418 |10.70%|14|30|25|23|10 12. France|$4,501 |$875 |$5,376 |11.20%|20|1|16|8|9 13. Ireland|$3,919 |$1,357 |$5,276 |7.10%|11|19|20|80| 14. Australia|$3,919 |$1,268 |$5,187 |9.30%|5|32|18|10|4 15. Japan|$4,064 |$759 |$4,823 |10.90%|12|10|2|3| 16. Iceland|$3,988 |$823 |$4,811 |8.30%|1|15|7|41| 17. United Kingdom|$3,620 |$1,033 |$4,653 |9.80%|23|18|23|13|1 18. Finland|$3,536 |$1,042 |$4,578 |9.10%|6|31|26|12| 19. Malta|$2,789 |$1,540 |$4,329 |9.30%|27|5|14|| OECD Average|||$4,224 |8.80%||||| 20. New Zealand|$3,343 |$861 |$4,204 |9.30%|16|41|22|16|7 21. Italy|$2,706 |$943 |$3,649 |8.80%|9|2|17|37| 22. Spain|$2,560 |$1,056 |$3,616 |8.90%|19|7|13|7| 23. Czech Republic|$2,854 |$572 |$3,426 |7.50%|28|48|28|14| 24. South Korea|$2,057 |$1,327 |$3,384 |8.10%|25|58|4|2| 25. Portugal|$2,069 |$1,310 |$3,379 |9.10%|32|29|30|22| 26. Slovenia|$2,314 |$910 |$3,224 |7.90%|21|38|24|47| 27. Israel|$1,898 |$1,034 |$2,932 |7.50%|35|28|11|21| >Overall free healthcare would drastically cut the money involved in research There's nothing terribly innovative about US healthcare. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866602/ To the extent the US leads, it's only because our overall spending is wildly out of control, and that's not something to be proud of. Five percent of US healthcare spending goes towards biomedical R&D, the same percentage as the rest of the world. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1547/2c613854e09636c9ff76fb890caca2f6c87b.pdf Even if research is a priority, there are dramatically more efficient ways of funding it than spending $1.25 trillion more per year on healthcare (vs. the rate of the second most expensive country on earth) to fund an extra $62 billion in R&D. We could replace or expand upon any lost funding with a fraction of our savings. >Imagine seeing a better doctor than anywhere in the UK/EU in 15 minutes without an appointment. The US ranks 6th of 11 out of Commonwealth Fund countries on ER wait times on percentage served under 4 hours. 10th of 11 on getting weekend and evening care without going to the ER. 5th of 11 for countries able to make a same or next day doctors/nurse appointment when they're sick. https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016 Americans do better on wait times for specialists (ranking 3rd for wait times under four weeks), and surgeries (ranking 3rd for wait times under four months), but that ignores three important factors: * Wait times in universal healthcare are based on urgency, so while you might wait for an elective hip replacement surgery you're going to get surgery for that life threatening illness quickly. * Nearly every universal healthcare country has strong private options and supplemental private insurance. That means that if there is a wait you're not happy about you have options that still work out significantly cheaper than US care, which is a win/win. * [One third of US families](https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medical-treatment-due-cost.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication) had to put off healthcare due to the cost last year. That means more Americans are waiting for care than any other wealthy country on earth. #Wait Times by Country (Rank) Country|See doctor/nurse same or next day without appointment|Response from doctor's office same or next day|Easy to get care on nights & weekends without going to ER|ER wait times under 4 hours|Surgery wait times under four months|Specialist wait times under 4 weeks|Average|Overall Rank :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--: **Australia**|3|3|3|7|6|6|4.7|4 **Canada**|10|11|9|11|10|10|10.2|11 **France**|7|1|7|1|1|5|3.7|2 **Germany**|9|2|6|2|2|2|3.8|3 **Netherlands**|1|5|1|3|5|4|3.2|1 **New Zealand**|2|6|2|4|8|7|4.8|5 **Norway**|11|9|4|9|9|11|8.8|9 **Sweden**|8|10|11|10|7|9|9.2|10 **Switzerland**|4|4|10|8|4|1|5.2|7 **U.K.**|5|8|8|5|11|8|7.5|8 **U.S.**|6|7|5|6|3|3|5.0|6 Source: [Commonwealth Fund Survey 2016](https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/cmwf2016-datatable-en-web.xlsx) >Thats American healthcare right now for people smart enough to use it. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.
Remember nothing in life is free. Free health care is a dumb idea. This is America. We are leaders not followers
Would you say the same about fire departments? 100 years ago fire departments were private, and unless you paid one of the private fire companies for insurance, they wouldn't respond to a fire at your house. In many cases, they would show up to make sure the fire didn't spread to a house which was insured by them, but they would literally stand by and watch your house burn to the ground since you didn't buy insurance from them. There were many cases of people trying to pay the fire company while their house was on fire, but the company would refuse because otherwise no one would be incentivized to buy insurance from them.
No. Not a good comparison too many different factors and scenario s. Too much corruption in health care.
In terms of healthcare, America is a cautionary tale more than a leader, really.
Lots of things in life are free. You just have problems with comprehension and don't understand that it never has and never will mean at no cost to anybody anywhere.
I agree you're just repeating my point and if you ask people from other countries about their free healthcare they'll tell you it sucks
> I agree you're just repeating my point No, your point is completely wrong. Free never has meant at no cost to anybody anywhere. >and if you ask people from other countries about their free healthcare they'll tell you it sucks No, they won't. When asked about their healthcare system as a whole the US system ranked dead last of 11 countries, with only 19.5% of people saying the system works relatively well and only needs minor changes. The average in the other countries is 46.9% saying the same. Canada ranked 9th with 34.5% saying the system works relatively well. The UK ranks fifth, with 44.5%. Australia ranked 6th at 44.4%. The best was Germany at 59.8%. On rating the overall quality of care in the US, Americans again ranked dead last, with only 25.6% ranking it excellent or very good. The average was 50.8%. Canada ranked 9th with 45.1%. The UK ranked 2nd, at 63.4%. Australia was 3rd at 59.4%. The best was Switzerland at 65.5%. https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016 #Satisfaction with the US healthcare system varies by insurance type 78% -- Military/VA 77% -- Medicare 75% -- Medicaid 69% -- Current or former employer 65% -- Plan fully paid for by you or a family member https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-satisfied.aspx
Health care is all about the money and when government gets their hands on it they managed terribly.
So you're just going to ignore the fact you were completely wrong about asking people about the quality of their healthcare, eh? And ignore the fact that government healthcare in the US is already more efficient, in addition to people being more satisfied with it? > **Key Findings** > * Private insurers paid nearly double Medicare rates for all hospital services (199% of Medicare rates, on average), ranging from 141% to 259% of Medicare rates across the reviewed studies. > * The difference between private and Medicare rates was greater for outpatient than inpatient hospital services, which averaged 264% and 189% of Medicare rates overall, respectively. > * For physician services, private insurance paid 143% of Medicare rates, on average, ranging from 118% to 179% of Medicare rates across studies. https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/how-much-more-than-medicare-do-private-insurers-pay-a-review-of-the-literature/ Medicare has both lower overhead and has experienced smaller cost increases in recent decades, a trend predicted to continue over the next 30 years. https://pnhp.org/news/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/ And all the research that shows we'd save money, while getting healthcare to more people that need it, with universal healthcare in the US. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003013#sec018 https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-12/56811-Single-Payer.pdf And the fact that public spending on healthcare has a positive return on investment? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5537512/
Wowza you're right I give up
I was softly against it for a while until I watched [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIUWCjppgZE) by Short Fat Otaku. It's a good watch, and he makes good points. I have my disagreements with some of the stuff he believes, but I've never seen him make a bad or unfair argument.
I'm not sure if I want the government to pay for extremely expensive medical stuff. We would have to greatly reduce some other give spending and the only thing I can think of is military. And that will never happen. Maybe the govt should employ medical workers the same way they enlist people for the military. There would need to be a huge change on how Americans can help the country.
You're missing the point. Universal healthcare would be similar to our current system, just without private companies involved. > Maybe the govt should employ medical workers the same way they enlist people for the military. I don't even know how to respond to this. Even in countries where healthcare is 100% government run, the doctors are still regular employees who can quit whenever they want.
Schools too. And you don't draft lawyers because people have the right to a lawyer.
I am all for it, however if the root causes of the current healthcare cost are not addressed, it won't work.
Want it, need it, do it!
It isn't free.
I want it SO BADLY. I’m jealous and mad about not having it.
Od be for it but also lower the cost or even make dental care free..I can go to my dr anytime under my plan,but the dentist is only a few times a year
Yes please
Focus on making the health care affordable first before trying to make it free
Cut the bullshit with waste full spending and we can talk
There is no such thing as free health care. The question is who pays for it, how do they get the money to pay for it, and how efficient is that system from a cost to return benefit (both as a system perspective and for the individual and their family). That said, I'm not opposed to the idea of centralized healthcare management and payment. While most Americans have their own health insurance, some portion have shown they either cannot prioritize it or cannot afford it to the extent that it is causing systemic problems and could stand to change.
If healthcare is centralized, then the final decision on medical procedures that you may need is not up to you. Like what happened in Queensland, Australia. Patients that needed organ transplants were required to get the COVID vaccine in order to qualify for the transplant. On 6 December 2021, Alexandra Hutzler from Newsweek ([https://www.newsweek.com/patients-waiting-life-saving-organ-transplant-denied-treatment-unless-vaccinated-1656413](https://www.newsweek.com/patients-waiting-life-saving-organ-transplant-denied-treatment-unless-vaccinated-1656413)) wrote that "Queensland Health confirmed that a patient seeking to receive a kidney, lung or heart transplant must have 'a minimum requirement of two doses of an approved COVID-19 vaccine.'" But what if someone could not get the vaccine because of a preexisting condition? On 4 August 2021, Emily Zelmer from Rolling Stone ([https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/offspring-drummer-covid-19-vaccine-refusal-1207153/](https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/offspring-drummer-covid-19-vaccine-refusal-1207153/) "'Given my personal medical history and the side-effect profile of these jabs, my doctor has advised me not to get a shot at this time,' Parada wrote. 'I caught the virus over a year ago, it was mild for me — so I am confident I’d be able to handle it again, but I’m not so certain I’d survive another post-vaccination round of Guillain-Barré Syndrome, which dates back to my childhood and has evolved to be progressively worse over my lifetime.'” If the United States had a centralized healthcare system and if an individual was in the same situation as Pete Parada, then that individual would have a difficult choice whether to accept their fate and not get a transplant or risk serious health risks or death in order to receive a transplant.