4 ms·

This mindset does not make sense to me. People already pay for local schools (K-12), even if they have no children. They already pay for a local library, even i

This mindset does not make sense to me. People already pay for local schools (K-12), even if they have no children. They already pay for a local library, even if they never use it. They pay for a local fire department, even if their house never burns down. They pay for a local police station, even if they are never the victim of a crime. People pay for services that benefit others all the time - why should health be any different?

lotsofpulp 7y ago
There are quite a few people in the US who would rather not pay for schools and libraries for other people’s children.
quadrifoliate 7y ago
> People already pay for local schools (K-12), even if they have no children. Very rarely. Good schools attract paying parents with large families, leading to a self-reinforcing effect and affecting property values so much that it's one of the search facets on property sites like Zillow. So really they pay for their children, usually. > They already pay for a local library, even if they never use it. This is a relic of when people did use libraries more. A lot of library systems are dying out with the excuse of "but we prefer Kindles". > They pay for a local fire department, even if their house never burns down. They pay for a local police station, even if they are never the victim of a crime. They do this more out of fear of avoiding viscerally life-threatening consequences. Somehow healthcare has assumed the status of not such a thing in the States. ----------- For what it's worth, I am strongly opposed to these viewpoints, but just stating that there is not as much self-contradiction there as you think.
- boardwaalk 7y ago
  What do you mean people “very rarely” pay for local schools? I pay over 50% of my local property taxes into the school district here. It’s roughly that much all over the city and all over any big city in my state; you can’t escape it. And it was about $2800 out of my pocket last year. And if you’re not paying this directly, it’s probably because you rent (and you’re getting passed on the cost) or it’s hidden in income taxes.
  - quadrifoliate 7y ago
    > What do you mean people “very rarely” pay for local schools? I guess a nuanced version of what I mean is – they very rarely pay a lot for schools if they don't have children. Put another way, they do pay through the nose for schools if they do have children, which it sounds like you are doing. Of course there are exceptions to this. Maybe you live in a district with great schools and have no children, in which case you are paying for a great school with no direct way you can take advantage of the benefits. My point was that this situation is relatively rare; perhaps it wasn't expressed too well.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
lunias 7y ago
What I don't understand is why people would need to pay more (and that always seems to be the crux of why we can / can't do something). It's about allocation of existing funds to me. We spend more on our military than most other other developed nations combined. There are other billions of dollars misappropriated. Bolstering the coffers with taxes is simple, but doesn't seem entirely necessary since there is already a ton of money floating around.
- Cederfjard 7y ago
  You would need to pay more in the short term when transitioning, but not in the long term. You spend far and away more on health care per capita than any other country in the world.
coldtea 7y ago
>People pay for services that benefit others all the time - why should health be any different? If some people could have their way, they'd remove paying for those -- or for bridges, roads, federal infrastructure etc away from their area, too. Let the locals short it out. But a difference with those things you've mentioned is that they were born with them existing. So they're some kind of default (though a minority still debates them). Whereas nationalized healthcare would be a new development for them....
frockington1 7y ago
Exactly the point. K-12 public education is a huge waste of money and that nets poor results. Nobody wants to pay for private healthcare on top of private education that is near-mandatory in some parts of the country
- mcny 7y ago
  > Exactly the point. K-12 public education is a huge waste of money and that nets poor results. Nobody wants to pay for private healthcare on top of private education that is near-mandatory in some parts of the country Having children is a choice at a different level than the need for healthcare. If I had to pick between public education and public healthcare, I'd pick public healthcare every time. I haven't verified it but a quick Google search shows "American taxpayers spent close to $649 billion on its K-12 schools in 2015". I don't know how much the US spends on healthcare. iirc it is about 18% of GDP or roughly a fifth. If our GDP is USD 20T, then we already spend almost $4T on healthcare. We don't know if adopting a system similar to Germany's will allow us to get it down to what Germany has (11% of GDP) but we have to try.
JustSomeNobody 7y ago
Believe me, they don't want to pay for these. We, in Fl, have people move into the state and fight their property tax because "our kids are not in school anymore".
Consultant32452 7y ago
Where did you get the idea that's the mindset?

lotsofpulp 7y ago

There are quite a few people in the US who would rather not pay for schools and libraries for other people’s children.

quadrifoliate 7y ago

> People already pay for local schools (K-12), even if they have no children. Very rarely. Good schools attract paying parents with large families, leading to a self-reinforcing effect and affecting property values so much that it's one of the search facets on property sites like Zillow. So really they pay for their children, usually. > They already pay for a local library, even if they never use it. This is a relic of when people did use libraries more. A lot of library systems are dying out with the excuse of "but we prefer Kindles". > They pay for a local fire department, even if their house never burns down. They pay for a local police station, even if they are never the victim of a crime. They do this more out of fear of avoiding viscerally life-threatening consequences. Somehow healthcare has assumed the status of not such a thing in the States. ----------- For what it's worth, I am strongly opposed to these viewpoints, but just stating that there is not as much self-contradiction there as you think.

boardwaalk 7y ago
What do you mean people “very rarely” pay for local schools? I pay over 50% of my local property taxes into the school district here. It’s roughly that much all over the city and all over any big city in my state; you can’t escape it. And it was about $2800 out of my pocket last year. And if you’re not paying this directly, it’s probably because you rent (and you’re getting passed on the cost) or it’s hidden in income taxes.
- quadrifoliate 7y ago
  > What do you mean people “very rarely” pay for local schools? I guess a nuanced version of what I mean is – they very rarely pay a lot for schools if they don't have children. Put another way, they do pay through the nose for schools if they do have children, which it sounds like you are doing. Of course there are exceptions to this. Maybe you live in a district with great schools and have no children, in which case you are paying for a great school with no direct way you can take advantage of the benefits. My point was that this situation is relatively rare; perhaps it wasn't expressed too well.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

lunias 7y ago

What I don't understand is why people would need to pay more (and that always seems to be the crux of why we can / can't do something). It's about allocation of existing funds to me. We spend more on our military than most other other developed nations combined. There are other billions of dollars misappropriated. Bolstering the coffers with taxes is simple, but doesn't seem entirely necessary since there is already a ton of money floating around.

Cederfjard 7y ago
You would need to pay more in the short term when transitioning, but not in the long term. You spend far and away more on health care per capita than any other country in the world.

coldtea 7y ago

>People pay for services that benefit others all the time - why should health be any different? If some people could have their way, they'd remove paying for those -- or for bridges, roads, federal infrastructure etc away from their area, too. Let the locals short it out. But a difference with those things you've mentioned is that they were born with them existing. So they're some kind of default (though a minority still debates them). Whereas nationalized healthcare would be a new development for them....

frockington1 7y ago

Exactly the point. K-12 public education is a huge waste of money and that nets poor results. Nobody wants to pay for private healthcare on top of private education that is near-mandatory in some parts of the country

mcny 7y ago
> Exactly the point. K-12 public education is a huge waste of money and that nets poor results. Nobody wants to pay for private healthcare on top of private education that is near-mandatory in some parts of the country Having children is a choice at a different level than the need for healthcare. If I had to pick between public education and public healthcare, I'd pick public healthcare every time. I haven't verified it but a quick Google search shows "American taxpayers spent close to $649 billion on its K-12 schools in 2015". I don't know how much the US spends on healthcare. iirc it is about 18% of GDP or roughly a fifth. If our GDP is USD 20T, then we already spend almost $4T on healthcare. We don't know if adopting a system similar to Germany's will allow us to get it down to what Germany has (11% of GDP) but we have to try.

JustSomeNobody 7y ago

Believe me, they don't want to pay for these. We, in Fl, have people move into the state and fight their property tax because "our kids are not in school anymore".

Consultant32452 7y ago

Where did you get the idea that's the mindset?