5 ms·

There's another way to look at it that I don't think the USA will be ready to understand any time soon: Universal health and education are (key parts of) freedo

by jdub 10y ago

There's another way to look at it that I don't think the USA will be ready to understand any time soon: Universal health and education are (key parts of) freedom. You can even put a market spin on it: None of the risks involved in starting a small business in Australia have to do with health care for myself, or for people who might consider joining my small business as employees. I've never felt as if I'm giving up autonomy or surrendering to the yoke of the state or whatever. Public universal health care gives me freedom. From and for so many things.

quantum_state 10y ago
With the election in US, I have to say that civilization in the country has been set back for many centuries.. not surprised to see a dog bites dog environment in the States...
- StevePerkins 10y ago
  > been set back for many centuries Oh come ON, Internet...
- estel 10y ago
  A century is a very long time, even for a President.
witty_username 10y ago
But someone has to pay for the health care, so they're losing some freedom (money in this case). That person gives up freedom also on the pricing of your healthcare. Note: that person may be you, depending on taxation
- jdub 10y ago
  The value of the better society I live in is greater than the value of what I pay in tax.
- omginternets 10y ago
  You're equating money with freedom where the question is philosophical: can you be 'free' in any meaningful way if your life is burdened by a lack of education, the financial ruin of having been seriously ill, or the handicap of having been poorly treated for a disease? So yes, that's precisely the trade-off. We accept to lose a little bit of money in exchange for the ability to flourish.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    But you can buy health insurance instead of public healthcare. But you lose the freedom to decide.
    - omginternets 10y ago
      >So yes, that's precisely the trade-off. We accept to lose a little bit of s/money/freedom-of-decision in exchange for the ability to flourish.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - zo1 10y ago
    This is a fundamental difference in view point on the concept of "Freedom". That's also why it's important to call taxation for what it truly is. Until people can be born free without automatic obligation to the state to provide for "your freedom", then they're not really free. That is the only freedom that matters and is definable outside of feel-good politics. So lets be honest: I'm losing the "Freedom" to spend all my money how I choose, so you can be free of the worry that certain "bad" things may happen to you.
- cpncrunch 10y ago
  People in France pay less than half what people in the USA pay for healthcare, and they also get much better quality of healthcare as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea... How are you "free" when you're being scammed by your insurance companies and hospitals into paying more than twice what you should be for your inferior healthcare?
  - witty_username 10y ago
    If insurance companies and hospitals are scamming people, then why aren't people investing in those companies? Or why aren't people starting a insurance company or hospital? If there's really a scam, people could make good money from it.
    - cpncrunch 10y ago
      Actually, inefficiency would probably be a better term than "scam". Here is an article that goes into some of the reasons: http://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/why-is-healthcare-so-expensive http://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/why-is-healthcare-so-e...
    - tmnvix 10y ago
      > If insurance companies and hospitals are scamming people, then why aren't people investing in those companies? People do. Generally wealthy people. That there is so much money being made in the healthcare industry is a large part of the problem.
fiatjaf 10y ago
That impression probably comes from the fact that you're not on the payer side of the bills, you're always on the receiver side.
- jdub 10y ago
  I'm in tech. Top 10-15% of incomes. I pay plenty of tax and I'm A-OK with that.
- ako 10y ago
  I know i pay for these things through taxes, but i think in the end it's cheaper if we handle this through a tax system. No huge corporations looking to improve their profits at the cost of service to customers. I like to think of western-europe as an all-in or full-service country. Maybe you pay a bit more, but you get way better service, and by not having to decide and buy yourself you're left with more of what's really important: free time. Most of what is state provided is fairly high quality: from health-care, to education to infrastructure our government does a pretty good job.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    Australia has exceptional demographics that make this possible - for the moment. It won't last, for the same reason it won't in Europe. But, you get to gloat for quite a while as an Australian, it'll last decades longer than in Europe, where unemployment makes the current situation untenable. To put it bluntly: Australia has a participation rate of 65%, dropping slowly (ie. pretty much perfectly stable for the past, frankly, almost the past century). Europe has a participation rate of 55%. Now you might think that's not a big difference, but it's the difference between 1 worker paying for 50% of a non-worker versus 1 worker paying for 80% of a non-worker. That means the life of close to 2 people needs to be financed from one job in the EU, whereas in Australia it's just slightly over 1. Keep in mind that there is even more leverage, as people who are only employed to take care of the elderly, the young, ... make up a significant part of the workforce and shouldn't be counted as employed for this purpose (a geriatrician, a teacher, a nurse, ... is paid from taxes to take care of non-workers, that means he doesn't contribute to the economy). Therefore the numbers in Australia, are about 1 for 1 (ie. tax rate of just shy of ~50%), in Europe the numbers are really about 1 for 3 (ie. total tax rate of slightly over ~75%) But even in Australia it's essentially over. Australians should have started to have way more kids about a decade ago to prevent what's now pretty much inevitable. Although once again Australia gets to sit back and watch what happens in other economies before it's forced to take action itself, like in the financial crisis. It should do well. Doesn't change the outcome though : taxes in Australia will have to rise to halve your post-tax income over the next 2-3 decades. In Europe ... let's not go there, taxing at 100% would not allow for enough economic activity to support the pensions and healthcare at the current level of provided care. Dedicating all economic activity in the EU to just that single purpose is ... not enough. Therefore, elderly care and health care will have to scale down, a LOT (and may God help them if Trump follows through on forcing Europe into defense spending). The basic problem is, the lower the working population gets the more massive the advances in productivity (the economic kind) have to be. There is a slight issue with that: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/european-union/productivity http://www.tradingeconomics.com/european-union/productivity (I've had healthcare in both Europe and Australia though. Let me tell you, Europe is better. Though I guess it does greatly vary based on the exact location)
mmagin 10y ago
> You can even put a market spin on it: None of the risks involved in starting a small business in Australia have to do with health care for myself, or for people who might consider joining my small business as employees. Though you may have heard politicians in the USA profess their love of small business, in general, their actions are contrary to it. Both parties regularly do things which are good for big business, but which do hardly anything to 1. reduce the tax burden on small businesses, 2. reduce the paperwork/bureaucracy burden on small businesses, 3. make it easier for a larger percentage of society to engage in the creation of new businesses. Even though ACA (Obamacare) has been somewhat of a step in the right direction, it's still the case that if you want _good_ insurance, you better be part of a group healthcare plan (i.e. not an individual plan.)

by jdub 10y ago

quantum_state 10y ago

With the election in US, I have to say that civilization in the country has been set back for many centuries.. not surprised to see a dog bites dog environment in the States...

StevePerkins 10y ago
> been set back for many centuries Oh come ON, Internet...
estel 10y ago
A century is a very long time, even for a President.

witty_username 10y ago

But someone has to pay for the health care, so they're losing some freedom (money in this case). That person gives up freedom also on the pricing of your healthcare. Note: that person may be you, depending on taxation

jdub 10y ago
The value of the better society I live in is greater than the value of what I pay in tax.
omginternets 10y ago
You're equating money with freedom where the question is philosophical: can you be 'free' in any meaningful way if your life is burdened by a lack of education, the financial ruin of having been seriously ill, or the handicap of having been poorly treated for a disease? So yes, that's precisely the trade-off. We accept to lose a little bit of money in exchange for the ability to flourish.
- witty_username 10y ago
  But you can buy health insurance instead of public healthcare. But you lose the freedom to decide.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    >So yes, that's precisely the trade-off. We accept to lose a little bit of s/money/freedom-of-decision in exchange for the ability to flourish.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- zo1 10y ago
  This is a fundamental difference in view point on the concept of "Freedom". That's also why it's important to call taxation for what it truly is. Until people can be born free without automatic obligation to the state to provide for "your freedom", then they're not really free. That is the only freedom that matters and is definable outside of feel-good politics. So lets be honest: I'm losing the "Freedom" to spend all my money how I choose, so you can be free of the worry that certain "bad" things may happen to you.
cpncrunch 10y ago
People in France pay less than half what people in the USA pay for healthcare, and they also get much better quality of healthcare as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea... How are you "free" when you're being scammed by your insurance companies and hospitals into paying more than twice what you should be for your inferior healthcare?
- witty_username 10y ago
  If insurance companies and hospitals are scamming people, then why aren't people investing in those companies? Or why aren't people starting a insurance company or hospital? If there's really a scam, people could make good money from it.
  - cpncrunch 10y ago
    Actually, inefficiency would probably be a better term than "scam". Here is an article that goes into some of the reasons: http://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/why-is-healthcare-so-expensive http://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/why-is-healthcare-so-e...
  - tmnvix 10y ago
    > If insurance companies and hospitals are scamming people, then why aren't people investing in those companies? People do. Generally wealthy people. That there is so much money being made in the healthcare industry is a large part of the problem.

fiatjaf 10y ago

That impression probably comes from the fact that you're not on the payer side of the bills, you're always on the receiver side.

jdub 10y ago
I'm in tech. Top 10-15% of incomes. I pay plenty of tax and I'm A-OK with that.
ako 10y ago
I know i pay for these things through taxes, but i think in the end it's cheaper if we handle this through a tax system. No huge corporations looking to improve their profits at the cost of service to customers. I like to think of western-europe as an all-in or full-service country. Maybe you pay a bit more, but you get way better service, and by not having to decide and buy yourself you're left with more of what's really important: free time. Most of what is state provided is fairly high quality: from health-care, to education to infrastructure our government does a pretty good job.
- candiodari 10y ago
  Australia has exceptional demographics that make this possible - for the moment. It won't last, for the same reason it won't in Europe. But, you get to gloat for quite a while as an Australian, it'll last decades longer than in Europe, where unemployment makes the current situation untenable. To put it bluntly: Australia has a participation rate of 65%, dropping slowly (ie. pretty much perfectly stable for the past, frankly, almost the past century). Europe has a participation rate of 55%. Now you might think that's not a big difference, but it's the difference between 1 worker paying for 50% of a non-worker versus 1 worker paying for 80% of a non-worker. That means the life of close to 2 people needs to be financed from one job in the EU, whereas in Australia it's just slightly over 1. Keep in mind that there is even more leverage, as people who are only employed to take care of the elderly, the young, ... make up a significant part of the workforce and shouldn't be counted as employed for this purpose (a geriatrician, a teacher, a nurse, ... is paid from taxes to take care of non-workers, that means he doesn't contribute to the economy). Therefore the numbers in Australia, are about 1 for 1 (ie. tax rate of just shy of ~50%), in Europe the numbers are really about 1 for 3 (ie. total tax rate of slightly over ~75%) But even in Australia it's essentially over. Australians should have started to have way more kids about a decade ago to prevent what's now pretty much inevitable. Although once again Australia gets to sit back and watch what happens in other economies before it's forced to take action itself, like in the financial crisis. It should do well. Doesn't change the outcome though : taxes in Australia will have to rise to halve your post-tax income over the next 2-3 decades. In Europe ... let's not go there, taxing at 100% would not allow for enough economic activity to support the pensions and healthcare at the current level of provided care. Dedicating all economic activity in the EU to just that single purpose is ... not enough. Therefore, elderly care and health care will have to scale down, a LOT (and may God help them if Trump follows through on forcing Europe into defense spending). The basic problem is, the lower the working population gets the more massive the advances in productivity (the economic kind) have to be. There is a slight issue with that: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/european-union/productivity http://www.tradingeconomics.com/european-union/productivity (I've had healthcare in both Europe and Australia though. Let me tell you, Europe is better. Though I guess it does greatly vary based on the exact location)

mmagin 10y ago

> You can even put a market spin on it: None of the risks involved in starting a small business in Australia have to do with health care for myself, or for people who might consider joining my small business as employees. Though you may have heard politicians in the USA profess their love of small business, in general, their actions are contrary to it. Both parties regularly do things which are good for big business, but which do hardly anything to 1. reduce the tax burden on small businesses, 2. reduce the paperwork/bureaucracy burden on small businesses, 3. make it easier for a larger percentage of society to engage in the creation of new businesses. Even though ACA (Obamacare) has been somewhat of a step in the right direction, it's still the case that if you want _good_ insurance, you better be part of a group healthcare plan (i.e. not an individual plan.)