4 ms·
Can someone explain the benefits of a US-style healthcare system vs nationalised tax funded healthcare? All I see from threads like this is a lot of Americans
by yarper 10y ago
Can someone explain the benefits of a US-style healthcare system vs nationalised tax funded healthcare?
All I see from threads like this is a lot of Americans bickering over their own healthcare, and as an outsider I don't really know how how it works, and why everyone is so invested in how it works now.
What happens if you don't have insurance? To me any system where you make sick people pay more than rich people seems bonkers no? If most people's employers already pay it on their behalf, isn't it a business tax already?
- kmicklas 10y ago> Can someone explain the benefits of a US-style healthcare system vs nationalised tax funded healthcare? None. > I see from threads like this is a lot of Americans bickering over their own healthcare, and as an outsider I don't really know how how it works, and why everyone is so invested in how it works now. Because actual change is near impossible these days. (Ultimately this is largely a result of flaws in our electoral system. Most notably, gerrymandering gives Republicans a near permanent lock on the House.) > What happens if you don't have insurance? You die. > To me any system where you make sick people pay more than rich people seems bonkers no? Republican congressmen are bonkers and/or evil. > If most people's employers already pay it on their behalf, isn't it a business tax already? That's a large part of the problem. It got tied to employment in during WWII when the government mandated salary caps for some industries so firms competed on benefits. I think almost everyone agrees this is bad but it's impossible to change because of gridlock.