4 ms·

If healthcare is any indicator I wouldn't be so sure. The US is consistently ranked at the bottom of most-efficient healthcare systems. You guys pay so much mor

If healthcare is any indicator I wouldn't be so sure. The US is consistently ranked at the bottom of most-efficient healthcare systems. You guys pay so much more per capita then any other nation on the planet [1]. So your taxes might be lower, but you still need to spend the money via other channels. [1] 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...

rootusrootus 7y ago
Yeah we basically subsidize a huge amount of healthcare technology that gets deployed far cheaper in other places. I wish we'd stop.
dmd149 7y ago
Sure. How this manifests on an individual level though can be vastly different. Many employers offer highly subsidized health care as part of compensation. So that + higher salaries my guess is American’s still come out ahead.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  If coming out ahead means having to put a 3 month old in daycare. And worrying about losing your job as you would also lose access to healthcare for the 3 month old. And coming out ahead means pumping breastmilk, when it’s vastly inferior for the mother and much likelier to cause her to lose her milk supply. Edit: the top 10% do very well in the US. The next 10% are hoping to become part of the top 10%. The bottom 80% don’t have a better option.
  - dmd149 7y ago
    Evidence please.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      Which claim? Federal law gives 3 months off from work (if employer has 50 or more employees). There’s like 8 states with 4.5 months off, and 6 weeks for dads. Also might be subject to minimum employer size. And the vast, vast, majority of people don’t work for a high margin tech or finance company with generous leave benefits so I don’t see what the point is talking about them. You’re either part of the group making passive income so you’re not worried about losing your income source, or you’re not.
      - dmd149 7y ago
        Claim 1: Parents have to put their 3 month old in daycare. My response to Claim 1: (Parents have options, one of them is daycare. Another is to have a parent stay at home with the child. Extended families can pitch in. Many range of options here. Those are just examples. Claim 2: The bottom 80% of Americans don’t have better options. My response to Claim 2: Not sure what better options you’re referring to or what evidence you’re providing to support that the bottom 80% (by income?) have no better options. Claim 3 (from your most recent comment): If you’re not making passive income, you’re worried. My response to Claim 3: Most families make something work without having passive income. One or both parents may have a normal job or jobs.
        extra88 7y ago
        > have a parent stay at home with the child Assumes there are two parents in the household. For two-parent households, assumes it can cover its expenses from the labor of only one of them. This option also doesn't address the fact that taking an extended break from working often has a long-term effect on one's income and career; this could change if doing so was more normalized, particularly for men. > Extended families can pitch in Assumes parents have extended family, that its members live close enough to do the work of child care, assumes the extended family members (including grandparents) are not also working and therefore unavailable, assumes they are capable and willing to provide free child care.
      - extra88 7y ago
        Federal law only guarantees you can't lose your job for taking that amount of leave, it does not require employers to pay you for that time off. I suspect they were asking for evidence of your claims about the harm caused by pumping breast milk instead of an infant feeding directly from the breast.

rootusrootus 7y ago

Yeah we basically subsidize a huge amount of healthcare technology that gets deployed far cheaper in other places. I wish we'd stop.

dmd149 7y ago

Sure. How this manifests on an individual level though can be vastly different. Many employers offer highly subsidized health care as part of compensation. So that + higher salaries my guess is American’s still come out ahead.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
If coming out ahead means having to put a 3 month old in daycare. And worrying about losing your job as you would also lose access to healthcare for the 3 month old. And coming out ahead means pumping breastmilk, when it’s vastly inferior for the mother and much likelier to cause her to lose her milk supply. Edit: the top 10% do very well in the US. The next 10% are hoping to become part of the top 10%. The bottom 80% don’t have a better option.
- dmd149 7y ago
  Evidence please.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Which claim? Federal law gives 3 months off from work (if employer has 50 or more employees). There’s like 8 states with 4.5 months off, and 6 weeks for dads. Also might be subject to minimum employer size. And the vast, vast, majority of people don’t work for a high margin tech or finance company with generous leave benefits so I don’t see what the point is talking about them. You’re either part of the group making passive income so you’re not worried about losing your income source, or you’re not.
    - dmd149 7y ago
      Claim 1: Parents have to put their 3 month old in daycare. My response to Claim 1: (Parents have options, one of them is daycare. Another is to have a parent stay at home with the child. Extended families can pitch in. Many range of options here. Those are just examples. Claim 2: The bottom 80% of Americans don’t have better options. My response to Claim 2: Not sure what better options you’re referring to or what evidence you’re providing to support that the bottom 80% (by income?) have no better options. Claim 3 (from your most recent comment): If you’re not making passive income, you’re worried. My response to Claim 3: Most families make something work without having passive income. One or both parents may have a normal job or jobs.
      - extra88 7y ago
        > have a parent stay at home with the child Assumes there are two parents in the household. For two-parent households, assumes it can cover its expenses from the labor of only one of them. This option also doesn't address the fact that taking an extended break from working often has a long-term effect on one's income and career; this could change if doing so was more normalized, particularly for men. > Extended families can pitch in Assumes parents have extended family, that its members live close enough to do the work of child care, assumes the extended family members (including grandparents) are not also working and therefore unavailable, assumes they are capable and willing to provide free child care.
    - extra88 7y ago
      Federal law only guarantees you can't lose your job for taking that amount of leave, it does not require employers to pay you for that time off. I suspect they were asking for evidence of your claims about the harm caused by pumping breast milk instead of an infant feeding directly from the breast.