3 ms·

So, why don't you do if then? Which country has lower unemployment rate and higher birth rate than US where taxation is low ? Can you name one ? I love the down

So, why don't you do if then? Which country has lower unemployment rate and higher birth rate than US where taxation is low ? Can you name one ? I love the downvotes. I make a factual statement that Spain, which is referenced in the article, has higher tax burden, a 17% unemployment rate and a lower birth rate than US and they freak out.

alkonaut 9y ago
Almost all other modern democracies (e.g OECD) have universal healthcare. Almost all have lower unemployment rates than Spain (if not all). Taxation varies. Was my point. Those that have the healthcare as a public insurance on the side of taxes can have low taxes. Those with tax funded single payer obviously have higher taxes. My example of choice of low-ish taxes, high birth rate and universal healthcare would be Ireland. There are others.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  You are missing the point. Yes, countries have lots of benefits, what I am having issue with is the claim those benefits are cheaper. No, they are paid for in different ways. There aren't any others. US has a lower tax burden than almost all OECD countries except for Ireland. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes... Technically, Ireland fails my test because it has a higher unemployment rate than US. Safe to say, Ireland is an exception due to being probably most catholic country in the western world, which keeps birth rate high My specific test is, find me a developed country with lower unemployment rate, lower taxes and higher birth rate than US. There isn't one. And that's how those benefits are paid for
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    Whether single payer or other universal systems are “cheaper” is one question. The US system isn’t the only way of having a private system, and there are reasons for it being expensive other than it being market based (monopolies, legal reasons etc). While it’s hard to say why US healthcare is more expensive, it’s at least pretty easy to say that other systems aren’t like the US, and are cheaper. They are paid for in different ways (e.g taxes, fees,...), correct. And those costs are lower. Naturally countries with tax funded healthcare have higher taxes. An apples-to-apples comparison is of course between tax+healthcare in both countries. Third: unemployment rate. This is also locally dependent on what full employment is, which depends on, for example, unemployment benefits etc. 6% unemployment in Sweden is pretty good, but would be terrible in the US. So percentages are not directly comparable. (For example 6% in Ireland is comparably lower unemployment than the current 4% in the US in a fair comparison as Ireland’s full employment rate is 5% - They are at full+1%) As such, finding countries which have lower taxes despite including healthcare and lower unemployment despite perhaps having 80% unemployment benefits isn’t just impossible it’s a pretty useless comparison to begin with. To make a fair comparison you have to correct for local factors: taxes excluding healthcare, and unemployment as difference from full employment (to begin with).
    - vasilipupkin 9y ago
      it's not a useless comparison. In aggregate, US has one of the lowest tax burdens in OECD. So, in countries where you have lots of benefits, those benefits are paid for with higher taxes !!! so, to say, that in aggregate those benefits cost less is simply inaccurate. You have to correctly account for the costs.
      - alkonaut 9y ago
        Yes. And healthcare costs are lower in nearly every way you measure: individual procedures, cost per individual per year etc. That Americans (and their employers) pay more than others pay for healthcare through taxes isn’t just widely known it’s also by a pretty wide margin. So yes benefits are paid for by taxes. And the question is: does that make it cheaper?
        vasilipupkin 9y ago
        cost per individual per year is lower in other OECD countries because its subsidized through heavy taxation. So, it's not really lower, it's just shifted into a different bucket for accounting purposes. But it didn't go anywhere - that's the point. You can see it easily by the fact that taxation as % of GDP is much higher than in the US. Where does that extra money go? Subsidizing healthcare and other benefits
        alkonaut 9y ago
        No. That’s not what I’m talking about. If you think thats what people mean when they say “healthcare is cheaper in countries with single payer” then no wonder you don’t seem to find it attractive. The cost of providing healthcare (total) is lower in all those countries. That is, a country might use $10k per individual per year for healthcare, financed by taxes. Meanwhile the average for a US individual (paid with insurance) is twice that (those numbers were made up but you get the point). As you are saying, there is nothing magic about this. Having a single insurance pool and putting the premium on the tax bill doesn’t change much - it’s just accounting. And obviously it will make taxes look higher. But if you pay $1000 per month in taxes and $1000 to healthcare, or $2000 in taxes, it’s just the same thing with a different name. The difference is this: you could pay $1500 in taxes (with healthcare costing 500 when single payer instead of 1000 via private insurance) And then it’s a very real difference. Again, numbers made up for illustrative purposes. A new US system would likely look like Canadas, so should have similar costs. Oh - a fun fact: the US spends more public money on healthcare than some OECD countries with universal healthcare (e.g Sweden)! http://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-spends-public-money-healthcare-sweden-canada/ http://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-spends-public-money-heal...

alkonaut 9y ago

Almost all other modern democracies (e.g OECD) have universal healthcare. Almost all have lower unemployment rates than Spain (if not all). Taxation varies. Was my point. Those that have the healthcare as a public insurance on the side of taxes can have low taxes. Those with tax funded single payer obviously have higher taxes. My example of choice of low-ish taxes, high birth rate and universal healthcare would be Ireland. There are others.

vasilipupkin 9y ago
You are missing the point. Yes, countries have lots of benefits, what I am having issue with is the claim those benefits are cheaper. No, they are paid for in different ways. There aren't any others. US has a lower tax burden than almost all OECD countries except for Ireland. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes... Technically, Ireland fails my test because it has a higher unemployment rate than US. Safe to say, Ireland is an exception due to being probably most catholic country in the western world, which keeps birth rate high My specific test is, find me a developed country with lower unemployment rate, lower taxes and higher birth rate than US. There isn't one. And that's how those benefits are paid for
- alkonaut 9y ago
  Whether single payer or other universal systems are “cheaper” is one question. The US system isn’t the only way of having a private system, and there are reasons for it being expensive other than it being market based (monopolies, legal reasons etc). While it’s hard to say why US healthcare is more expensive, it’s at least pretty easy to say that other systems aren’t like the US, and are cheaper. They are paid for in different ways (e.g taxes, fees,...), correct. And those costs are lower. Naturally countries with tax funded healthcare have higher taxes. An apples-to-apples comparison is of course between tax+healthcare in both countries. Third: unemployment rate. This is also locally dependent on what full employment is, which depends on, for example, unemployment benefits etc. 6% unemployment in Sweden is pretty good, but would be terrible in the US. So percentages are not directly comparable. (For example 6% in Ireland is comparably lower unemployment than the current 4% in the US in a fair comparison as Ireland’s full employment rate is 5% - They are at full+1%) As such, finding countries which have lower taxes despite including healthcare and lower unemployment despite perhaps having 80% unemployment benefits isn’t just impossible it’s a pretty useless comparison to begin with. To make a fair comparison you have to correct for local factors: taxes excluding healthcare, and unemployment as difference from full employment (to begin with).
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    it's not a useless comparison. In aggregate, US has one of the lowest tax burdens in OECD. So, in countries where you have lots of benefits, those benefits are paid for with higher taxes !!! so, to say, that in aggregate those benefits cost less is simply inaccurate. You have to correctly account for the costs.
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      Yes. And healthcare costs are lower in nearly every way you measure: individual procedures, cost per individual per year etc. That Americans (and their employers) pay more than others pay for healthcare through taxes isn’t just widely known it’s also by a pretty wide margin. So yes benefits are paid for by taxes. And the question is: does that make it cheaper?
      - vasilipupkin 9y ago
        cost per individual per year is lower in other OECD countries because its subsidized through heavy taxation. So, it's not really lower, it's just shifted into a different bucket for accounting purposes. But it didn't go anywhere - that's the point. You can see it easily by the fact that taxation as % of GDP is much higher than in the US. Where does that extra money go? Subsidizing healthcare and other benefits
        alkonaut 9y ago
        No. That’s not what I’m talking about. If you think thats what people mean when they say “healthcare is cheaper in countries with single payer” then no wonder you don’t seem to find it attractive. The cost of providing healthcare (total) is lower in all those countries. That is, a country might use $10k per individual per year for healthcare, financed by taxes. Meanwhile the average for a US individual (paid with insurance) is twice that (those numbers were made up but you get the point). As you are saying, there is nothing magic about this. Having a single insurance pool and putting the premium on the tax bill doesn’t change much - it’s just accounting. And obviously it will make taxes look higher. But if you pay $1000 per month in taxes and $1000 to healthcare, or $2000 in taxes, it’s just the same thing with a different name. The difference is this: you could pay $1500 in taxes (with healthcare costing 500 when single payer instead of 1000 via private insurance) And then it’s a very real difference. Again, numbers made up for illustrative purposes. A new US system would likely look like Canadas, so should have similar costs. Oh - a fun fact: the US spends more public money on healthcare than some OECD countries with universal healthcare (e.g Sweden)! http://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-spends-public-money-healthcare-sweden-canada/ http://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-spends-public-money-heal...