4 ms·

That doesn't explain why people who can't afford health insurance are opposed to universal, government-funded healthcare, which is what the comment above you wa

by geofft 7y ago

That doesn't explain why people who can't afford health insurance are opposed to universal, government-funded healthcare, which is what the comment above you was about. Meanwhile, I (SRE at a hedge fund) and all my liberal coastal elite friends can absolutely afford private doctors in an emergency without having to think about cost up front, and we do support universal healthcare—and we know it would be a larger tax bill for us. (BTW, in practical terms, putting liberal elites in well-paying, politically-connected industries on your healthcare system is a great way to make sure it doesn't turn into the VA. America cares deeply about our happiness. It doesn't care about our veterans and sort of wishes they hadn't survive, so we could just remember their sacrifice instead of actually facing up to what we did to them.)

leetcrew 7y ago
for a lot of deep-seated structural reasons, the US tends to be pretty bad at implementing most citizen-facing services. it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that we would also do much worse at universal healthcare than the europeans. for the services that the US does actually offer, we tend to spend more money and produce worse outcomes. > (BTW, in practical terms, putting liberal elites in well-paying, politically-connected industries on your healthcare system is a great way to make sure it doesn't turn into the VA. America cares deeply about our happiness. It doesn't care about our veterans and sort of wishes they hadn't survive, so we could just remember their sacrifice instead of actually facing up to what we did to them.) this is a pretty common talking point, but I don't really see this happening with the systems that already exist that wealthy people have to use. I, an upper-middle class white person, still have to take at least a half day of PTO any time I need to go to the DMV. my dad, wealthier than me, still had to spend a whole day at city hall disputing a $40,000 water bill (the city doesn't even have a functioning water meter on his property because DPW paved over the access; it's been "estimated" for twenty years).
foldr 7y ago
>and we know it would be a larger tax bill for us. It would quite possibly be a net saving. The UK, for example, spends less public money on healthcare than the US. There's no necessary reason why you should end up paying more in taxes for universal coverage than you pay currently for insurance.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  convert your USD salary to pounds and then do a UK tax calculator. compare the UK NHS tax to your yearly premiums and copays plus the employer contribution (should be on your W-2). when I did this, I found that I would pay about $2k more for the UK tax than my total healthcare costs in the US (including the portion paid by my employer). I'm sure lots of people on this forum make even more than I do. there are definitely some good arguments for universal healthcare, but software devs should not delude themselves that they will do any better than break even in most cases. edit: probably not true, I didn't investigate the UK tax system enough.
  - foldr 7y ago
    What is the UK NHS tax? There is no such tax, as far as I'm aware. You may be thinking of "National Insurance", but that is not specific to the NHS (and nor do all NHS funds come from National Insurance).
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      I'm sorry, it's actually called national insurance. am I making an incorrect assumption? I'm just going off this tax calculator: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tax-calculator/ https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tax-calculator/
      - foldr 7y ago
        Yep, incorrect. National Insurance is not an NHS tax.
        leetcrew 7y ago
        sorry to be obtuse, did I just call it the wrong name or is it completely different? I'm american and I just assumed that NHS is the government org that handles healthcare and a mandatory contribution is pretty similar to a tax.
DINKDINK 7y ago
>That doesn't explain why people who can't afford health insurance It's because doctors et al don't want to work for less than $x/hr and there are people who don't produce enough to trade with doctors or prefer to spend their money on other things. There's no way to get a free lunch out of this.

by geofft 7y ago

leetcrew 7y ago

for a lot of deep-seated structural reasons, the US tends to be pretty bad at implementing most citizen-facing services. it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that we would also do much worse at universal healthcare than the europeans. for the services that the US does actually offer, we tend to spend more money and produce worse outcomes. > (BTW, in practical terms, putting liberal elites in well-paying, politically-connected industries on your healthcare system is a great way to make sure it doesn't turn into the VA. America cares deeply about our happiness. It doesn't care about our veterans and sort of wishes they hadn't survive, so we could just remember their sacrifice instead of actually facing up to what we did to them.) this is a pretty common talking point, but I don't really see this happening with the systems that already exist that wealthy people have to use. I, an upper-middle class white person, still have to take at least a half day of PTO any time I need to go to the DMV. my dad, wealthier than me, still had to spend a whole day at city hall disputing a $40,000 water bill (the city doesn't even have a functioning water meter on his property because DPW paved over the access; it's been "estimated" for twenty years).

foldr 7y ago

>and we know it would be a larger tax bill for us. It would quite possibly be a net saving. The UK, for example, spends less public money on healthcare than the US. There's no necessary reason why you should end up paying more in taxes for universal coverage than you pay currently for insurance.

leetcrew 7y ago
convert your USD salary to pounds and then do a UK tax calculator. compare the UK NHS tax to your yearly premiums and copays plus the employer contribution (should be on your W-2). when I did this, I found that I would pay about $2k more for the UK tax than my total healthcare costs in the US (including the portion paid by my employer). I'm sure lots of people on this forum make even more than I do. there are definitely some good arguments for universal healthcare, but software devs should not delude themselves that they will do any better than break even in most cases. edit: probably not true, I didn't investigate the UK tax system enough.
- foldr 7y ago
  What is the UK NHS tax? There is no such tax, as far as I'm aware. You may be thinking of "National Insurance", but that is not specific to the NHS (and nor do all NHS funds come from National Insurance).
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    I'm sorry, it's actually called national insurance. am I making an incorrect assumption? I'm just going off this tax calculator: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tax-calculator/ https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tax-calculator/
    - foldr 7y ago
      Yep, incorrect. National Insurance is not an NHS tax.
      - leetcrew 7y ago
        sorry to be obtuse, did I just call it the wrong name or is it completely different? I'm american and I just assumed that NHS is the government org that handles healthcare and a mandatory contribution is pretty similar to a tax.

DINKDINK 7y ago

>That doesn't explain why people who can't afford health insurance It's because doctors et al don't want to work for less than $x/hr and there are people who don't produce enough to trade with doctors or prefer to spend their money on other things. There's no way to get a free lunch out of this.