other countries that offer this don’t have the population of the US
@This Guy Fvcks, And like half their paychecks go to taxes
@This Guy Fvcks, massive government spending
mmm, yes but we also have adequate living costs. We have no lesser material prosperity
@Jomyani, by that logic the US should be able to minimize the tax increase associated with single payer healthcare because it has a larger pool of citizens to draw from.
You just solved American healthcare. The republicans are after you now. Good luck.
@The Mythic Canuck, in america, government funded anything is merely a blank check. Ignoring that is willful ignorance.
@cruss4612, I’m not sure how that nonsensical statement pertains to my joke but thanks for your input!
@Jomyani, more in taxes, but more services are provided for no charge
@This Guy Fvcks, and they don't have to deal with fixing the world's issues
@Jomyani, Based on the average UK salary, and the proportion of our taxes which go on the NHS, we pay an average of about £2,000 a year for full healthcare, free at point of use. Everything from a course of antibiotics or patching up a broken leg, to organ transplants or twenty years of cancer treatments.
And of course children are covered for free as they don’t have a salary to pay taxes from.
Plus, the sheer buying power of the NHS means we can get drugs at better rates - the US pays an average of 2 1/2 times as much for drugs as the UK does.
It ain’t a perfect system, and I’m not saying that it would work in the US, but it works pretty well over here.
@This Guy Fvcks, what's a ratio?
@This Guy Fvcks, they also dont have the massive wealth and gdp the usa generates yearly.
@The Mythic Canuck, most people dont make that connection. They cant seem to fathom that they are paying a middle man for healthcare. Literally makes little to no sense from a consumer perspective
@cruss4612, ah so i see you are against any government funded venture since they are “blank checks”
@Implicit88, yes, for the most part
@Nellybert , the avg a family pays in the usa is about 12,000 a year which i think is about 14000 euros per year. That includes monthly premium and usage costs. Most people dont understand that a single buyer would create the most purchasing leverage. But in the usa there is so much propaganda and most people arent intelligent enough to decipher it for what it is.
@cruss4612, what about police, firefighters, k-12, disaster relief, epidemic research, roads, bridges, other infrastructure.
@Implicit88, i said for the most part. Those are all local responsibilities by the way with the exception of epidemic research.
@cruss4612, yes and now. We have state and federal police. And tax money gets allocated to towns as well.
@Nellybert , you have a tiny country, and higher class citizens pay for private care. That means they get to cut out the wait and bureaucracy.
@Implicit88, right. So remove the government, who takes my money - wastes a bunch of it on their lobbyists and cronies, then determines how much goes to the doctors. There’s definitely no middleman there is there.
@hollow114, if it only it was that simple sweetheart
@This Guy Fvcks, that's what a ratio is. England can do it. So can we.
@This Guy Fvcks, we can fix that
@Implicit88, Ouch. There’s an insurance excess (co-pay?) in many cases too, isn’t there?
So for a pretty low annual cost, we all get universal coverage - and if we want to pay for private healthcare on top of that, we can (and because it won’t have to cover stuff the NHS provides, premiums are pretty low - maybe a few hundred pounds a year).
Again, not saying that this approach is right for everyone - if the USA tried to adopt this model overnight, it would be chaos.
@big freedom, It’s all scalable - bigger population = bigger tax base to pay for it.
And yeah, people can top up with private health insurance (very few do though) for a few hundred pounds a year if they want to.
@Implicit88, the US is barred from negotiating its leverage against Medicare, theres a few bills from both sides to address it. Overall though the biggest problem for the US is its massive distribution of population. Unlike Europe that has 2 times the people crammed into 2/3rds the space, the vast majority of americans live in low density suburbs with some in lower density rural and many in high density cities. Aside from our current doctor shortage, theres simply no way to distribute care equally in a way that doesnt SOLELY benefit cities. Let's say they decide 1 doctor per 500 people, in NYC that could be a single block, while in the midwest that could be 50 square miles. Just like teachers now, Doctors will gravitate to rich cities and neighborhoods while poor inner cities and rural areas will become medical deserts.
@Nellybert , the UK can negotiate, but that aside the problem of price is also multifaceted where the US allows patents to hold against generics to recoup their loses while other countries mandate they allow generics to enter the market. The research costs the same and someone has to foot the bill considering many drugs dont make it out of trial. The cost to develop far exceeds the cost to produce. The biggest problem is why people think the "greedy drug companies that raise prices constantly" wouldn't just say "okay no more research then" as a punishment to any attempt to remove their profit mechanisms. Unless you're prepared to advocate slavery for medical researchers theres no real way to make them do it.
@thrawnfett, That’s what patent laws are for - drugs are protected for years to allow them to recoup their costs and make profits, exactly as they should be able to. If they weren’t making a profit from selling to the NHS, they wouldn’t do it (we can’t force them to sell/agree to a price, and there’s no threat of the NHS stealing their intellectual property to make the drugs itself if they refuse).
I’m not calling them greedy, and not advocating slavery and/or nationalisation of drug research/manufacture (the NHS is a nationalised service provider, not a nationalised producer - all their drugs, machinery, equipment etc is purchased from private companies, and I wouldn’t suggest changing that).
@Nellybert , the point isn't that the NHS buying them at a lower cost is bad, or they wont sell to it. The point is the cost of manufacturing 500k pills for the UK market is a tiny fraction of the development costs. They use the US market with its friendly medical market structure (advertising to consumers and doctors, long patent times, good shield laws) to pay the development costs, while exporting the finished products at cost or low profit to secure market share and long term revenue. It's two completely different models, because to a multinational corporation the balance sheets at the end are the same with one providing short term cost recouping and the other long term revenue to secure the corporate bottom line.
The point is your system development cost is subsidized by ours, and ours is held steady by yours, because the third party wants money and has ties to both. The problem is if you pull out one they both topple because no one thinks like a multinational corporation
@thrawnfett, I think this would be a great time to refer back to the final paragraphs of my first and second posts - it’s a system that works here, but I’m not saying it could/should be adopted by the US.
@hollow114, again fraction of the population. doesn’t work that way
@Nellybert , well here in the US 49% of people pay no federal income tax. Fix that first and then I’ll listen.
But I’m sick of people voting for Santa Claus to come in and give them more stuff.
The government is. It here to provide you with anything. The government exists to protect individual liberties and provide for a common defense.
@big freedom, please for the love of God look at the tax rates in 1960
@hollow114, that doesn’t answer my question or the problem today.
@This Guy Fvcks, if 10 people pay $100 you get 1,000. If 100 people pay $100 you get 10,000. It's called a ratio. This is already how insurance works.
@big freedom, the bottom paid less taxes and the top paid like 70-90% up until the 1980s. Things have been pretty downhill since then.
@hollow114, and the government was 0% involved in giving away healthcare. I agree. It’s gone downhill since then.
@big freedom, I don't think you understand how healthcare works. Please look up how effective the NHS is. It's not free, it's just not profit driven so all of the money put in comes out. Even the Koch brothers, those guys who support far right conservatives did a study that shows it would cost everyone less and be more effective. This is about efficiency, not being all upset the people not being paid enough don't have to give what little they have to the government.
@big freedom, and man. In the 1950s the government gave away free houses and education like candy, built the interstate, and then we went to the Moon.
@hollow114, and now we have a government that gives most of my money to their cronies and lobbyists and then spends the rest extremely inefficiently.
I will never understand people that put their faith in the government to be the benevolent benefactor of all the good things in the world.
I have better things to do with my day than to try and convince an insane person of the reality of big government.
@hollow114, unfortunately the more people you have the higher the number of people who don’t pay their “fair share” and the logistics of getting 10X the care needed is more costly than that of only a fraction of the people . i wish ur fantasy land logic was right though!
@big freedom, you are absolutely right. However I'm gonna be a little partisan here and say only one party is trying to pass legislation that ends lobbying, takes money out of politics, and removes incentives for cronies. And the leader is the dude in the post. I'd also like to point out the NHS. Right now the Tories party is intentionally trying to take money from the NHS so it does operate worse and they have an excuse to scrap it and make it private. This is also why Obamacare works in Switzerland where it was taken from. And in blue states that implemented it the right way.
Both parties have recently held majorities in BOTH houses AND held the presidency at the same time. Which one ended lobbying and took the money out of politics?
Be partisan all you want. It proves my earlier point. You’re crazy if you believe that they’re even slightly good.
Wait, why am I still here arguing with a crazy person?? Bye bye
@big freedom, wow, and we were having a good conversation. But honey? The Democrats which have obviously gone progressive since 2016 put forward a bill like what I described and Mitch threw it in the trash. "both sides" people are the crazy ones who obviously don't actually pay attention. and you need a majority in the Senate. Which obama never had. house can submit bills all day. Mitch has like 500 on his desk he won't allow a vote on. and that's been his game since he took power.
@big freedom, Mitch has 500 house bills on his desk he won't allow to go to vote. Please take a Civics class. You already know you won't win a debate here so that's why you've gone to personal attacks and laugh emojis.
@hollow114, and how many did he have blocked when the Democrats had the senate majority?
Dude, you’re a partisan hack. I have better things to do than debate with someone blinded by partisanship. I won’t change your mind. I have no desire to waste any more time on it. So 🤣🤣🤣 May seem childish, but to me believing that “my side good” is beyond childish in the extreme.
@big freedom, I've offered plenty of facts and statistics and you've just gone off about your feelings. Factsfeelings. And the Democrats had the Senate for literally 2yrs from 2008. That's it. Until gerrymandering happened, which I'm sure you'll deny despite actual audio recording showing its a gop strategy. And like I've said twice now. The Dem party has gone left since 2008.
@big freedom, "I don't trust the government with health insurance, but I trust my employer to pick one for me that because I can't just change jobs Willy nilly so I'm stuck with it and the only good health insurance is union coverage which is putting a tiny government in charge anyway"- that's you.
@hollow114, “I believe that the government can solve my problems, even though every single bit of evidence throughout history has proven that to not be the case. Personal responsibility is super hard so I want the government to do everything for me. And thinking critically is super hard, so I just want one good party in charge of the Santa Claus government” - that’s you
@big freedom, cute. But I seem to remember citing a libertarian and far right think tank from the Koch brothers saying universal healthcare is better. And how the GI Bill (free stuff) created the longest period of socialist America that made us the best country on Earth. Keep going on about your feelings though.
@big freedom, “I find cherry picked data to support my feelings about Santa Claus government” - you
@big freedom, see you see the government has some tyranical force who's on charge. I see them as a government for the people by the people. Even Benjamin Franklin wanted universal healthcare. You keep using your government subsidied healthcare system where the vast majority of the money goes to rich people put in place by Nixon to make rich people more money. But I'm sure your feelings won't allow any critical thought on the matter.
@big freedom, yep. More feelings. I can't see how "every other country in the world and a think tank of the freedom heritage who would obviously try and be biased to the right in the first place" is cherry picked. Lol.
@big freedom, the tax you pay for healthcare goes to private companies. Usually you have extremely limited options. In addition, there is little to no competition and its nearly impossible to just go without and get reasonable bills from doctors.
@hollow114, so you’re crazy? You think Mitch McConnel and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and Donald Trump etc. etc. are by the people for the people.
YOU’RE. A. CRAZY. PERSON.
My healthcare isn’t subsidized by the government. My cost is higher to help subsidize Medicare. Medicare for all will bankrupt... fûck, you got me on here trying to convince a crazy person. Damn dude
@big freedom, more feelings and getting upset. Hold on let me check my notes. "Oh Bernie is still backed 100% by people and not corporations and is the subject of this meme" okay. And no. Lol. It's subsidized by the government. It's really not my job to educate you. Look up HMOs and how Nixon ruined healthcare.
@hollow114, so... the government ruined healthcare? Hey we agree!!!!!!!
@big freedom, Republicans ruined healthcare. like they ruin most things. They ruined it by making it a crappy privatized system. Which they always do. And not for nothing our country is rich, we spend more on military than the next 11 nations combined and 500billion more than the second slot. But "we don't have the money" people are always quiet about that. We can't use proven government programs. but having everyone on welfare, and spending twice on healthcare that England does (of which the government already makes up 50%) is better. you stick with that. it hasn't worked since the 80s. but any time now.
@hollow114, 🤣 bye bye precocious partisan child.
@big freedom, check my edited post. Tired of arguing with feelings McGee over here. Please if you ever get laid off and need insurance and don't have any come back here and tell me how I'm right. I work in healthcare, it happens a lot, so I will be right. Thankfully your pre-existing conditions won't keep you from care thanks to Obamacare.
@Nellybert , lets break it down. Copays are a fee you have to pay just to see your doctor. Usually 25-50 usd. Then you have a deductible anywhere from 0-2000 usd. A deductible is the amount the a person must pay before your insurance kicks in. Then you have an annual maximum out of pocket usually from 500-8000 usd depending on the plan. You usually have a family maximum and individual, usually the family is double the individual. The maximum out of pocket is usually the most you will have yo pay in a given year but there are exceptions to that. In addition, to make things worse, people in our govt are actively trying to remove a requirement that preexisting conditions must be covered. This is important because if preexisting conditions are not covered, insurance companies can drop you when renewal time comes. To further complicate things you insurance is tied to your employer, so if you get fired or quit you are basically out of insurance.
@Nellybert , keep in mind costs ranges wildly for insurance, basic plans can costs $200 per month and cover virtually nothing while more robust plans can cost upwards of $1000. This doesnt even count the fact that employers usually contribute 50% of the total plan costs (which is a reduction in wages as well). Lastly, companies profit off of healthcare so money that is pooled in excess usually goes to payouts in the form of dividends or bonuses, so companies then try to maximize profit by denying coverage and/or limiting people that costs more.
@Implicit88, great! I am in favor of private companies!! Why do you post that like it’s a negative? Get the fûcking government out of the way and there are plenty of options to chose from.
@hollow114, I went on private market and literally had 13 choices for private medical insurance at a rate that was lower than my employer provided.
That’s not feelings chump, that’s actual living proof.
@big freedom, Again, I refer to the final paragraph of my first two posts - it’s a system that works here, but I’m not saying it could/should be adopted by the USA.
@Implicit88, Huh. So, if that change comes in, pretty much anyone with a long term condition (cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure etc) can get dropped within a year of diagnosis and probably find it’s almost impossible to get new healthcare because no insurance company would want to pick up a customer who is guaranteed to cost them a fortune?
@Nellybert , exactly. That is why it is crucial to protect people with preexisting conditions. We currently protect them, but republicans are trying to cancel that. But on the flip side they believe it is okay to benefit from otherwise healthy people that dont even use insurance but pay for it. Basically insurance companies want all the benefits but none of the risks when providing insurance.
@big freedom, compare coverage vs price. I doubt you will be saying the same thing. Those 13 choices are probably 3 companies with 3-4 plans each.
@big freedom, its a negative when it costs people more for insurance because we have the need to have a middle man between us and our doctor. There is no reason why we should need a middle man. Explain to me in a logical sense why a private company as a middle man between you and healthcare is a good thing. You cant. There is no reason.
@Implicit88, explain to me how having a massive federal bureaucracy is better than having a choice between multiple companies competing to earn my business! You can’t. There is no reason.
Every single legitimate study finds the most cost effective way is to have the closest relationship between care giver and payer.
I would eliminate insurance all together except for “major medical” exactly how our system was up until federal government got involved.
@big freedom, you dont have a choice between companies. Depending on your area you have 1-3 “options”. Furthermore, medicare has the highest favorability among all insurance plans and is the cheapest per person. Having everyone under one plan will greatly increase leverage and negotiating power. Furthermore, excess money will not go towards bonuses and dividends, instead it will be kept in a pool of money for future usage which could potentially lower the cost even further. Medicare would also cover everything, you cant say that about any private insurance plan can you? Overall in American society there is relatively little to no competition in established markets. The freedom of choice is merely an illusion. If you cant see that, than having a conversation is pointless
@Implicit88, thanks for the intro to economics explanation... I compared many companies and coverages. I chose the one that was best for my family.
Private healthcare that covered my wife’s preexisting condition. Covered my daughter’s broken arm this summer for a total out of pocket cost of $85. I used this in place of my employers plan because I HAD OPTIONS! When my company switched to a better plan... I once again used the mighty power of PERSONAL CHOICE to make an informed decision and switch.
You think you have it all down but sound like a petulant college sophomore that just had their first liberal studies class that taught you everything you know about the world.
You appear to have about as much real world knowledge as my 11 year old daughter. You continue to believe that the federal government is the answer to life’s problems and if we could only elect the fairy unicorn Santa Claus, that we’ll finally build the utopia you’ve always wanted.
@Implicit88, lies. Even the fûcking Republicans don’t want to end protecting coverage for preexisting conditions. You are a party hack and are blind to reality. Quit fueling lies of “my party good other party bad” it’s either ignorant or evil... which one are you?
@big freedom, what you pay for care also includes monthly premiums. The only reason your private healthcare covered your wifes preexisting condition is because of the law, if this law was removed i can guarantee your covered would either substantially increase in price or be denied coverage. The avg monthly premium for a family is $1,200. So you potentially paid 14485 for the broken arm. Seems reasonable.
@big freedom, republicans wanted to completely dismantle the ACA, including preexisting conditions. They only retracted their steps once voters had strong opposition to it. However Multiple state ags have challenged the aca and want to dismantle it which is still going on
@Implicit88, good. It should be dismantled. The government has no business whatsoever being involved in healthcare period. They’ve proven that they are incapable. The VA is a shining example of government efficiency.
@Implicit88, I love how you cite Medicare having highest favorable numbers, without citing that it is only in existence because the private insurance companies are required to pay more, in order for the Medicare patients to receive the same care. It’s literally propped up by private insurance and would be bankrupt within 2 years without private insurance making up the difference. You find ways to cherry pick data to confirm your bias. It’s hard to debate with someone who chooses to remain ignorant to reality.
@WelI Obviously, the US chose to do that. You guys didnt even want to get involved in ww2, you could have focused on yourselves instead of being world police but nooooo gotta go get that oil, I mean freedom
@thrawnfett, doctors do that now, unless your saying the farmers on food stamps can pay more than the city folk. In a single payer system the govt can incentivize doctors to move by paying them more. Canada already does it to get people to move up north, dont see why it wouldnt work for doctors
@hollow114, you're wasting your time. Idk if hes a troll or just dense but hes the biggest corporate sellout I've seen on this app
Lmfao. You see what I write, and think that I’m the corporate sell out. I can’t tell if you’re legitimately retarded, or just the dumbest troll this side of liberachi.
My guess is actually retarded.
Still more realistic that Hawkeye being a contributing member of the Avengers.
@Profiled Black Guy, every time Hawkeye wasn't on the team they were losing, even In age of ultron they had to go and hide at his house so don't put down my boy like that.
@JoJoS, hes like king from one punch man, Hawkeyes super power is summoning the avengers to not suck when hes around
Better dead than red.
Bernie, keep pushing
@big freedom, lets see what the people decide. Bernie is standing strong despite only negative or no coverage. Imagine when there is no choice but to cover.
@Implicit88, yep. His base will continue to hold the line and the actual people that vote rationally will realize his communist rhetoric will doom the nation. He won’t win. He’s extremely popular in a very niche market.
Classic Distraction, Classic Bernie!
Ok deal, your taxes are now 30% (on top of your current rate, of course). Enjoy working 4 days a week so Kanye’s kids can free college for “advanced booty studies”. NOTHING is free, stupid.
Oh yeah that scene is feckin cool
Does the same in the hobbit with a dwarfs head
Can we make this a meme template I like it
Peep the definition of radical in the dictionary, its just a timestap to that moment in the movie