|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 13 2020 19:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2020 19:18 Vivax wrote:
Cranking out doctors to meet demand isn't that easy considering you have to learn almost everything medicine has to offer before specializing which takes a lot of time.
Reforming the education away to a more specialized system that requires less time off the bat would help. But we're still stuck with the traditional one.
Don't see why a surgeon should have to learn all the stuff from fields he will not need and vice versa. Knowing the molecular mechanisms behind tumor growth won't make him operate better. For all I know pharmacology, anatomy and operating techniques are the key know-hows of a surgeon. Ehhh. That assumes an 18-yo knows he wants to be a heart surgeon (or... a proctologist) off the bat. Rather than getting a general medical education, and the chance to do internships to figure out what is interesting and where their skills lie.
This is one of the points why I see little neccessity to change the system. There are a few more points:
1.You need to understand what your colleagues are doing. A basic understanding of every aspect of medicine is important for that. If you really need occupational medicine might be debatable but most other specializations are important in at least some cases.
2. You are not getting deep understanding of the different fields. You are getting basics and some additional info. The added info is important to connect the facts you have to learn by heart. Without these it is way harder to remember all of the stuff you have to memorize. And even if you forget some of it again, there are many situations where you have something in the back of your brain that helps you find the needed information.
3 I find it important that every doctor should be able to treat the most common diseases and be able to do something without involving a specialist immediately. The amount of surgeons, or even oncologists, calling for Internal specialists because of slightly elevated blood pressure is astounding.
If you want to change curriculum (at least here in Germany) it should include way more practice to help memorizing the basic stuff you learned in a practical setting.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On February 13 2020 19:28 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2020 18:24 Arceus wrote:On February 13 2020 17:26 Acrofales wrote:On February 13 2020 09:34 Dante08 wrote:On February 12 2020 23:10 Simberto wrote:On February 12 2020 22:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 12 2020 22:50 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 12 2020 22:44 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 12 2020 22:37 Trainrunnef wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Poll: what % of gross pay do taxes, ins. and stud. loans add up to30-40% (9) 47% 20-30% (6) 32% 40-50% (3) 16% 50-60% (1) 5% i don't pay for insurance outside of taxes. (0) 0% 19 total votes Your vote: what % of gross pay do taxes, ins. and stud. loans add up to (Vote): 20-30%
(Vote): 30-40%
(Vote): 40-50%
(Vote): 50-60%
(Vote): i don't pay for insurance outside of taxes.
In the UK we pay income tax and national insurance (which is supposed to spent on the NHS). In total, when i was working last year, these added up to 12.36%. You haven't left an option for that. I used this tool: https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.phpand a salary of £18,000 for that. Are we going to factor in VAT here too? That 80-90% tax rate on me daily pack of fags does rather add up. I guess if we add VAT you would have to do maths that i don't know how to do (this applies to basically all maths) but it would be 12.36% on income plus 20% on purchases. The problem is that most tax systems are so complicated that it is really hard to get a good answer to the question of how much of your income is spent on taxes. You would basically need to actually look at peoples consumption habits, and possibly average over a reasonable slice of the population. In Germany for example, there are a bunch of different VAT levels, plus some vice taxes. So you can't simply say that you have to pay 20% of the money you earn after taxes as VAT (that would be pretty easy to calculate, simply multiply the money remaining. 60% after income taxes * 80% after VAT means you pay a total of 1-0.8*0.6=52% in taxes), because it depends on what kind of stuff you are buying. If you are buying more food, then there is less VAT onto that stuff. If you are buying lots of booze and cigarettes, you are spending a lot more on taxes. In you example, you would pay a total of about 30% in taxes. (1-(1-0.1236)*0.8)= 0.29888 Don’t forget you guys are comparing countries with MUCH SMALLER populations than the US. Any healthcare program would be much easier to implement in a 20m population country compared to 300m. Brazil has universal healthcare... It isn't great, but it services everyone, even in the remotest of remote locations (of which Brazil has a lot more and harder than the US). Brazil is also faaaaaaaaar poorer than the US. So how come they manage? What do you mean by "manage"? Have you lived in one of those countries? Here in Sweden: terrible doctors (try their best to send you home), crazy queue (3 months for a brain scan, 12 hours for some ultrasound if you are lucky) and very very expensive private clinic if any. Sure they treat infection superfast, cancer detection is great but the general rule of thumb is: let's not be sick. That, or travel to Germany or Finland for way better, faster private help. Some people are begging for help because issues regarding stomach for example are very hard to tell out right. And I pay crazy tax for that, and Sweden only has 10 million population. I have many other traumatic stories but you get the idea. Anyone shouting "free healthcare for yall now!" in a 300million pop country is either lying or shortsighted. Yes, I lived in Brazil. I even used public healthcare there for a year and a half before I caved and got private insurance. It wasn't really a big difference for the general day-to-day stuff, but if I had gotten anything serious it would have been a lot better. Particularly for waiting times on tests. Right now I'm waiting to get anything the doctor can give me to help me sleep through terrible coughing fits from the flu (self-diagnosed, it's worse than a common cold) at the public healthcare in Spain. Once again, people moan and waiting times for non-urgent stuff are pretty bad. But about 10 years ago before the neolibs took all the money out of it because "austerity" and haven't refunded it since, it was a lot better. Once again, I only got private insurance this month and mainly because my wife needs some specialist care and in the public system can only get an appointment every 6 months. She doesn't have anything threatening or urgent, but it does bother her and hopefully access to private clinics can speed the process of finding a cure up. I have also lived in Holland, which has mandatory price-regulated private insurance (I guess what Obamacare was supposed to be?) with tax breaks and subsidies for poor and lower middle class people. It's been a while since I lived there, but my parents seem quite satisfied. Public healthcare isn't a panacea. But if the US were to take all the money they spend on healthcare right now (which is an absurd amount) and use it to structure and fund a public system, I am quite convinced they could continue to provide a similar level of service to those who currently have private insurance... and provide that care for those who currently have nothing.
Very much so. Waiting lists are definitely a problem across many different systems. Sometimes it’s a structural problem, sometimes like mental health care over here it does seem mostly due to austerity cuts and is quite counter-productive because those people’s issues and care needs can snowball greatly.
|
So if I were going to change the system in the US, I would change it in such a way as you only change the necessary parts of the healthcare system at first instead of changing the whole system in one go.
Government run cancer wards, heart centres and renal units (maybe also something for diabetes and other conditions like this), for example, mean that people with lifelong medical problems that require constant care will have a publicly funded option.
I'll admit that I know very little about the US system, but surely if you are going to change something about it you change it so that it does the most good where required by the most people, and that would be in areas where people tend to need constant medical care.
Doing it this way would also give private healthcare companies the ability to plan and adjust so they can focus their efforts in areas that aren't covered by government programs.
|
On February 13 2020 20:06 Jockmcplop wrote:
So if I were going to change the system in the US, I would change it in such a way as you only change the necessary parts of the healthcare system at first instead of changing the whole system in one go.
Government run cancer wards, heart centres and renal units (maybe also something for diabetes and other conditions like this), for example, mean that people with lifelong medical problems that require constant care will have a publicly funded option.
I'll admit that I know very little about the US system, but surely if you are going to change something about it you change it so that it does the most good where required by the most people, and that would be in areas where people tend to need constant medical care.
Doing it this way would also give private healthcare companies the ability to plan and adjust so they can focus their efforts in areas that aren't covered by government programs.
Sounds like a recipe for for-profit insurance companies to offload their most expensive customers to the federal government and reap the windfall to me.
|
On February 13 2020 19:13 Silvanel wrote:
Germany has 80 mln, Europe has 740 mln. Russia is both much larger, much more diverse geographically and much more poorer than US with 150 mln people. The main obstacle to US having universal health care is not geography but resistance of population.
Did you just try to compare a continent to a country?
|
On February 13 2020 20:18 Dante08 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2020 19:13 Silvanel wrote:
Germany has 80 mln, Europe has 740 mln. Russia is both much larger, much more diverse geographically and much more poorer than US with 150 mln people. The main obstacle to US having universal health care is not geography but resistance of population. Did you just try to compare a continent to a country?
What are you here to do, my dude? Every time you get countered on a point you ignore it and move on to another point.
|
Normally systems with private insurers work like this:
Mandatory/State-Sponsored is basically everything non cosmetic that treats some sort of actual problem and is approved as save(!), working, cost effecitve and efficient.
Private insurer cover stuff like bigger Rooms in the Hospital, faster Access to specialists, free choice of your doctor/Hospital for planned treatments, Homeopathie and other BS... In general its for "extras", not for anything truely necessary.
Jocks idea sounds absolutely terrible.
|
On February 13 2020 18:24 Arceus wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2020 17:26 Acrofales wrote:On February 13 2020 09:34 Dante08 wrote:On February 12 2020 23:10 Simberto wrote:On February 12 2020 22:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 12 2020 22:50 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 12 2020 22:44 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 12 2020 22:37 Trainrunnef wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Poll: what % of gross pay do taxes, ins. and stud. loans add up to30-40% (9) 47% 20-30% (6) 32% 40-50% (3) 16% 50-60% (1) 5% i don't pay for insurance outside of taxes. (0) 0% 19 total votes Your vote: what % of gross pay do taxes, ins. and stud. loans add up to (Vote): 20-30%
(Vote): 30-40%
(Vote): 40-50%
(Vote): 50-60%
(Vote): i don't pay for insurance outside of taxes.
In the UK we pay income tax and national insurance (which is supposed to spent on the NHS). In total, when i was working last year, these added up to 12.36%. You haven't left an option for that. I used this tool: https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.phpand a salary of £18,000 for that. Are we going to factor in VAT here too? That 80-90% tax rate on me daily pack of fags does rather add up. I guess if we add VAT you would have to do maths that i don't know how to do (this applies to basically all maths) but it would be 12.36% on income plus 20% on purchases. The problem is that most tax systems are so complicated that it is really hard to get a good answer to the question of how much of your income is spent on taxes. You would basically need to actually look at peoples consumption habits, and possibly average over a reasonable slice of the population. In Germany for example, there are a bunch of different VAT levels, plus some vice taxes. So you can't simply say that you have to pay 20% of the money you earn after taxes as VAT (that would be pretty easy to calculate, simply multiply the money remaining. 60% after income taxes * 80% after VAT means you pay a total of 1-0.8*0.6=52% in taxes), because it depends on what kind of stuff you are buying. If you are buying more food, then there is less VAT onto that stuff. If you are buying lots of booze and cigarettes, you are spending a lot more on taxes. In you example, you would pay a total of about 30% in taxes. (1-(1-0.1236)*0.8)= 0.29888 Don’t forget you guys are comparing countries with MUCH SMALLER populations than the US. Any healthcare program would be much easier to implement in a 20m population country compared to 300m. Brazil has universal healthcare... It isn't great, but it services everyone, even in the remotest of remote locations (of which Brazil has a lot more and harder than the US). Brazil is also faaaaaaaaar poorer than the US. So how come they manage? What do you mean by "manage"? Have you lived in one of those countries? Here in Sweden: terrible doctors (try their best to send you home), crazy queue (3 months for a brain scan, 12 hours for some ultrasound if you are lucky) and very very expensive private clinic if any. Sure they treat infection superfast, cancer detection is great but the general rule of thumb is: let's not be sick. That, or travel to Germany or Finland for way better, faster private help. Some people are begging for help because issues regarding stomach for example are very hard to tell out right. And I pay crazy tax for that, and Sweden only has 10 million population. I have many other traumatic stories but you get the idea. Anyone shouting "free healthcare for yall now!" in a 300million pop country is either lying or shortsighted.
Exactly, Bernie's supporters act like he can just walk into office and implement one of the most ambitious healthcare plans in recent history for 300m people. And he doesn't seem to have communicated how he plans to fund it except for "fuck the billionaires". Guess what, assuming he gets elected, the moment it happens the rich would start moving their funds to tax havens before any comprehensive law gets enacted.
I get it the healthcare is bad but any plan would have to be progressive and meticulously planned. Once you go down the European road of NHS there's NO going back and future generations might have to bear the cost.
|
On February 13 2020 20:20 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2020 20:18 Dante08 wrote:On February 13 2020 19:13 Silvanel wrote:
Germany has 80 mln, Europe has 740 mln. Russia is both much larger, much more diverse geographically and much more poorer than US with 150 mln people. The main obstacle to US having universal health care is not geography but resistance of population. Did you just try to compare a continent to a country? What are you here to do, my dude? Every time you get countered on a point you ignore it and move on to another point.
All right fair enough but my point is you can't compare a continent to US. What's the healthcare in Russia and Germany like?
|
On February 13 2020 20:28 Dante08 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2020 20:20 Nebuchad wrote:On February 13 2020 20:18 Dante08 wrote:On February 13 2020 19:13 Silvanel wrote:
Germany has 80 mln, Europe has 740 mln. Russia is both much larger, much more diverse geographically and much more poorer than US with 150 mln people. The main obstacle to US having universal health care is not geography but resistance of population. Did you just try to compare a continent to a country? What are you here to do, my dude? Every time you get countered on a point you ignore it and move on to another point. All right fair enough but my point is you can't compare a continent to US. What's the healthcare in Russia and Germany like?
As i stated above, i am very happy with my healthcare system.
And the fact of the matter is that there is no reason why it should be impossible to have a working healthcare system in the US.
And if, for some inexplicable reason, it is not possible to have a system for a country of 300 million, simply split the country into 4 parts of 75 million people for healthcare purposes. Suddenly you are on the same scale of Germany.
This is pure US exceptionalism. You claim that all of the different systems which work better than the US system and which exist in literally every other developed nation couldn't work in the US.
Simply take a look at the wikipedia page i posted earlier. How can you look at that and not realize that the US simply has a shitty system, especially if you look at other statistics and notice that the US doesn't really have any better results to show for the much higher amount of money they spend on their broken system, all the while also being a system which ruins people financially.
|
On February 13 2020 20:06 Jockmcplop wrote:
So if I were going to change the system in the US, I would change it in such a way as you only change the necessary parts of the healthcare system at first instead of changing the whole system in one go.
Government run cancer wards, heart centres and renal units (maybe also something for diabetes and other conditions like this), for example, mean that people with lifelong medical problems that require constant care will have a publicly funded option.
I'll admit that I know very little about the US system, but surely if you are going to change something about it you change it so that it does the most good where required by the most people, and that would be in areas where people tend to need constant medical care.
Doing it this way would also give private healthcare companies the ability to plan and adjust so they can focus their efforts in areas that aren't covered by government programs. Which would be incredibly expensive for little return and just give fuel to the "its to expensive" argument.
UHC works on the principle that everyone pays a little and because most are healthy this leaves money for those who are actually sick or become injured. And because the government bargains on behalf of all the people they hold a lot of power over insurers which can push down costs and increase incentives for preventive care.
If an Insurer earns little money from you being sick, it is in their own interest to use preventive care, which is often cheaper, to make sure you don't get sick or that it gets caught early so they earn more money on you being healthy.
You can't just take bits and pieces of it to implement because then the system doesn't work.
This is why the GOP tried so hard to get rid of the Mandate from Obamacare. It required everyone to have insurance, thereby splitting the costs and making it affordable. If you remove it a bunch of healthy people decide they can risk not having insurance, so now you only have sick people paying for them being sick which inflates costs and renders it unsustainable.
|
Better for the average Joe than in the US... That was the entire point.
Sigh…
How do you actually do this in the US? You have no emergency but want something checked, do you kidnap a doctor or throw thousands of dollars at his feet so he makes time to treat you and push others back?
Waiting times aren't there because the state wants them, they exist because doctors can't/won't work more. Doctors sending people home that they don't deem ill, is in general a GOOD thing.
An Ultrasound andsimilar treatments, aren't normally emergencies, so it's totally allright to make an appointment with a doctor and having some time in betweeen. If your actually hurting, you declare an emergency and stuff will go much faster.
All these horror stories people tell about waiting lists are just so staggeringly ignorant when hit with reality.
|
On February 13 2020 20:25 Dante08 wrote:Guess what, assuming he gets elected, the moment it happens the rich would start moving their funds to tax havens before any comprehensive law gets enacted.
While I disagree with nearly everything else in that post, this part is a real issue for anyone trying to implement a wealth tax. The people we're targeting with a tax like that are the people most capable of moving their assets rapidly and then parking a thousand lawyers in front of the empty box.
To get anything in the net you would need to put a comprehensive bill together more or less in secret, make sure it's watertight, and then spring it on people in the dead of night with the various agencies on full lockdown the next morning. There's almost no way to do this in any democratic system, much less the US, where even if Bernie wins in a landslide it will be like 3 years before some toothless castrated version is allowed to limp through the senate.
I'm quite strongly in favour of wealth taxes in theory, but this has always seemed a near-intractable problem. I'd be curious to know how this worked in any of the countries that have already got them.
|
The worst is women who have premature babies.Many declare bankruptcy due to being unable to afford the cost of premature baby hospital care.
|
On February 13 2020 20:25 Dante08 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2020 18:24 Arceus wrote:On February 13 2020 17:26 Acrofales wrote:On February 13 2020 09:34 Dante08 wrote:On February 12 2020 23:10 Simberto wrote:On February 12 2020 22:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 12 2020 22:50 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 12 2020 22:44 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 12 2020 22:37 Trainrunnef wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Poll: what % of gross pay do taxes, ins. and stud. loans add up to30-40% (9) 47% 20-30% (6) 32% 40-50% (3) 16% 50-60% (1) 5% i don't pay for insurance outside of taxes. (0) 0% 19 total votes Your vote: what % of gross pay do taxes, ins. and stud. loans add up to (Vote): 20-30%
(Vote): 30-40%
(Vote): 40-50%
(Vote): 50-60%
(Vote): i don't pay for insurance outside of taxes.
In the UK we pay income tax and national insurance (which is supposed to spent on the NHS). In total, when i was working last year, these added up to 12.36%. You haven't left an option for that. I used this tool: https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.phpand a salary of £18,000 for that. Are we going to factor in VAT here too? That 80-90% tax rate on me daily pack of fags does rather add up. I guess if we add VAT you would have to do maths that i don't know how to do (this applies to basically all maths) but it would be 12.36% on income plus 20% on purchases. The problem is that most tax systems are so complicated that it is really hard to get a good answer to the question of how much of your income is spent on taxes. You would basically need to actually look at peoples consumption habits, and possibly average over a reasonable slice of the population. In Germany for example, there are a bunch of different VAT levels, plus some vice taxes. So you can't simply say that you have to pay 20% of the money you earn after taxes as VAT (that would be pretty easy to calculate, simply multiply the money remaining. 60% after income taxes * 80% after VAT means you pay a total of 1-0.8*0.6=52% in taxes), because it depends on what kind of stuff you are buying. If you are buying more food, then there is less VAT onto that stuff. If you are buying lots of booze and cigarettes, you are spending a lot more on taxes. In you example, you would pay a total of about 30% in taxes. (1-(1-0.1236)*0.8)= 0.29888 Don’t forget you guys are comparing countries with MUCH SMALLER populations than the US. Any healthcare program would be much easier to implement in a 20m population country compared to 300m. Brazil has universal healthcare... It isn't great, but it services everyone, even in the remotest of remote locations (of which Brazil has a lot more and harder than the US). Brazil is also faaaaaaaaar poorer than the US. So how come they manage? What do you mean by "manage"? Have you lived in one of those countries? Here in Sweden: terrible doctors (try their best to send you home), crazy queue (3 months for a brain scan, 12 hours for some ultrasound if you are lucky) and very very expensive private clinic if any. Sure they treat infection superfast, cancer detection is great but the general rule of thumb is: let's not be sick. That, or travel to Germany or Finland for way better, faster private help. Some people are begging for help because issues regarding stomach for example are very hard to tell out right. And I pay crazy tax for that, and Sweden only has 10 million population. I have many other traumatic stories but you get the idea. Anyone shouting "free healthcare for yall now!" in a 300million pop country is either lying or shortsighted. Exactly, Bernie's supporters act like he can just walk into office and implement one of the most ambitious healthcare plans in recent history for 300m people. And he doesn't seem to have communicated how he plans to fund it except for "fuck the billionaires". Guess what, assuming he gets elected, the moment it happens the rich would start moving their funds to tax havens before any comprehensive law gets enacted. I get it the healthcare is bad but any plan would have to be progressive and meticulously planned. Once you go down the European road of NHS there's NO going back and future generations might have to bear the cost. Well then I am sure those future generations will be very happy of the money their ancestors saved, since currently the US has one of the highest per capita costs in the entire world.
As for "how will he do it". That is a problem, and once talked about much in the last election aswell as cited as a reason why people went with Hillary over Bernie but the reality is that it doesn't matter. Because unless the GOP changes nothing can get done without a super majority in both chambers anyway. Regardless of what Democrat you put in power (unless its a closet Republican, then they might help a little)
|
On February 13 2020 20:42 Velr wrote:
Better for the average Joe than in the US... That was the entire point.
Sigh…
How do you actually do this in the US? You have no emergency but want something checked, do you kidnap a doctor or throw thousands of dollars at his feet so he makes time to treat you and push others back?
Waiting times aren't there because the state wants them, they exist because doctors can't/won't work more. Doctors sending people home that they don't deem ill, is in general a GOOD thing.
An Ultrasound andsimilar treatments, aren't normally emergencies, so it's totally allright to make an appointment with a doctor and having some time in betweeen. If your actually hurting, you declare an emergency and stuff will go much faster.
All these horror stories people tell about waiting lists are just so staggeringly ignorant when hit with reality.
Poland for example has a huge problem with doctor queues (up to 2 years in some instances), however for emergencies care is always provided. My mom had cancer and my dad suffered a seriuos heart attack, they both received necessary care and treatment and are doing well, and it didn't bankrupt my family in the process.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On February 13 2020 20:25 Dante08 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2020 18:24 Arceus wrote:On February 13 2020 17:26 Acrofales wrote:On February 13 2020 09:34 Dante08 wrote:On February 12 2020 23:10 Simberto wrote:On February 12 2020 22:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 12 2020 22:50 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 12 2020 22:44 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 12 2020 22:37 Trainrunnef wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Poll: what % of gross pay do taxes, ins. and stud. loans add up to30-40% (9) 47% 20-30% (6) 32% 40-50% (3) 16% 50-60% (1) 5% i don't pay for insurance outside of taxes. (0) 0% 19 total votes Your vote: what % of gross pay do taxes, ins. and stud. loans add up to (Vote): 20-30%
(Vote): 30-40%
(Vote): 40-50%
(Vote): 50-60%
(Vote): i don't pay for insurance outside of taxes.
In the UK we pay income tax and national insurance (which is supposed to spent on the NHS). In total, when i was working last year, these added up to 12.36%. You haven't left an option for that. I used this tool: https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.phpand a salary of £18,000 for that. Are we going to factor in VAT here too? That 80-90% tax rate on me daily pack of fags does rather add up. I guess if we add VAT you would have to do maths that i don't know how to do (this applies to basically all maths) but it would be 12.36% on income plus 20% on purchases. The problem is that most tax systems are so complicated that it is really hard to get a good answer to the question of how much of your income is spent on taxes. You would basically need to actually look at peoples consumption habits, and possibly average over a reasonable slice of the population. In Germany for example, there are a bunch of different VAT levels, plus some vice taxes. So you can't simply say that you have to pay 20% of the money you earn after taxes as VAT (that would be pretty easy to calculate, simply multiply the money remaining. 60% after income taxes * 80% after VAT means you pay a total of 1-0.8*0.6=52% in taxes), because it depends on what kind of stuff you are buying. If you are buying more food, then there is less VAT onto that stuff. If you are buying lots of booze and cigarettes, you are spending a lot more on taxes. In you example, you would pay a total of about 30% in taxes. (1-(1-0.1236)*0.8)= 0.29888 Don’t forget you guys are comparing countries with MUCH SMALLER populations than the US. Any healthcare program would be much easier to implement in a 20m population country compared to 300m. Brazil has universal healthcare... It isn't great, but it services everyone, even in the remotest of remote locations (of which Brazil has a lot more and harder than the US). Brazil is also faaaaaaaaar poorer than the US. So how come they manage? What do you mean by "manage"? Have you lived in one of those countries? Here in Sweden: terrible doctors (try their best to send you home), crazy queue (3 months for a brain scan, 12 hours for some ultrasound if you are lucky) and very very expensive private clinic if any. Sure they treat infection superfast, cancer detection is great but the general rule of thumb is: let's not be sick. That, or travel to Germany or Finland for way better, faster private help. Some people are begging for help because issues regarding stomach for example are very hard to tell out right. And I pay crazy tax for that, and Sweden only has 10 million population. I have many other traumatic stories but you get the idea. Anyone shouting "free healthcare for yall now!" in a 300million pop country is either lying or shortsighted. Exactly, Bernie's supporters act like he can just walk into office and implement one of the most ambitious healthcare plans in recent history for 300m people. And he doesn't seem to have communicated how he plans to fund it except for "fuck the billionaires". Guess what, assuming he gets elected, the moment it happens the rich would start moving their funds to tax havens before any comprehensive law gets enacted. I get it the healthcare is bad but any plan would have to be progressive and meticulously planned. Once you go down the European road of NHS there's NO going back and future generations might have to bear the cost.
The rich already do that anyway?
Per capita healthcare spend at the level of the state in the US is already pretty much the same as the state spend for European nations for whatever version of a nationalised system with universal coverage is employed. Then the spend in the private market is the same again.
But yet the tenor of a good chunk the media discussion is ‘how will we pay for Bernie’s plan (or any single payer proposal)?’ rather than ‘why are we spending way more than other equivalent countries?’
It’s completely arse about face. This isn’t even factoring in other side benefits in terms of economic mobility untethering from the current system enables. You don’t tend to hear ‘I want to switch careers/start a business but I have a good health plan where I am’ in many other places.
This isn’t to say you don’t rigorously plan and dot the i’s on any potential replacement system, far from it.
|
Simberto has it right. Germany's health care system is very good and it is laughably affordable!
US exceptionalism paired with the ubiquitous fear of well fare dabblers seems to be the problem.
|
On February 13 2020 20:52 PoulsenB wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2020 20:42 Velr wrote:
Better for the average Joe than in the US... That was the entire point.
Sigh…
How do you actually do this in the US? You have no emergency but want something checked, do you kidnap a doctor or throw thousands of dollars at his feet so he makes time to treat you and push others back?
Waiting times aren't there because the state wants them, they exist because doctors can't/won't work more. Doctors sending people home that they don't deem ill, is in general a GOOD thing.
An Ultrasound andsimilar treatments, aren't normally emergencies, so it's totally allright to make an appointment with a doctor and having some time in betweeen. If your actually hurting, you declare an emergency and stuff will go much faster.
All these horror stories people tell about waiting lists are just so staggeringly ignorant when hit with reality. Poland for example has a huge problem with doctor queues (up to 2 years in some instances), however for emergencies care is always provided. My mom had cancer and my dad suffered a seriuos heart attack, they both received necessary care and treatment and are doing well, and it didn't bankrupt my family in the process.
Lack of doctors because they emigrated to other EU countries or something else?
|
On February 13 2020 20:47 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2020 20:25 Dante08 wrote:Guess what, assuming he gets elected, the moment it happens the rich would start moving their funds to tax havens before any comprehensive law gets enacted. While I disagree with nearly everything else in that post, this part is a real issue for anyone trying to implement a wealth tax. The people we're targeting with a tax like that are the people most capable of moving their assets rapidly and then parking a thousand lawyers in front of the empty box. To get anything in the net you would need to put a comprehensive bill together more or less in secret, make sure it's watertight, and then spring it on people in the dead of night with the various agencies on full lockdown the next morning. There's almost no way to do this in any democratic system, much less the US, where even if Bernie wins in a landslide it will be like 3 years before some toothless castrated version is allowed to limp through the senate. I'm quite strongly in favour of wealth taxes in theory, but this has always seemed a near-intractable problem. I'd be curious to know how this worked in any of the countries that have already got them.
What percentage of "the wealthy" do you think would be able to maintain their wealth without any financial or business contact with the US? Remember that, to this day, US real estate is *the* priority vehicle for international wealth storage such that the wealthy keeping their money here in that form is starving dozens of cities of livable city real estate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
