4 ms·

It's just a reflection on hard it is to survive in USA. For most people, saving up that much money is a total luxury. Plus, having no real safety net from the g

It's just a reflection on hard it is to survive in USA. For most people, saving up that much money is a total luxury. Plus, having no real safety net from the government when you get sick or lose your job (like we do in EU) just makes it much worse.

subhobroto 6y ago
> having no real safety net from the government WHO pays for that? Is there a free lunch?
- wonderwonder 6y ago
  I'd be willing to contribute towards it. In fact, feel free to take 80% of the funds I put towards the military into the safety net. In addition, take all of the tax money they take from me and give to fossil fuels as well and put it toward it. Then if you want to create a universal health care, feel free to take my monthly contributions that I make towards health insurance. In addition, who is paying for the trillions we are pumping into boeing and the airlines right now. We always have money for war and well connected companies but never have enough funding for basic human decency.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    80% of the military budget won't cut it though. Social safety nets cost a lot of money. Yes, the US spends ridiculous amounts on the military (though on the other hand: that military is what gives them global dominance, which also is worth a lot of money), but just cutting that back won't give you a European style safety net. You'll have to increase taxes by a lot for everyone making more than the median, increase sales tax etc, essentially: pay more, not just reshuffle what you pay now.
    - wonderwonder 6y ago
      That's fine, increase taxes. Universal health care would also lead to greater bargaining power in regards to drugs, drastically reducing cost. Maybe insulin wont cost 10 times in the US what it costs in other developed nations. I already pay a large portion of my check towards health insurance, so does my employer. Route those funds towards Universal Healthcare. We can just call them taxes. This should not really be an argument. We are discussing whether it is appropriate for us to pay a bit more on taxes or to allow people to die. I fall into the more taxes side of the debate. I have good health insurance right now. Maybe a little TMI so be warned. I took my 7 year old kid to get something looked at a little over a year ago. He was experiencing burning when he urinated. They measured the flow of his urine and took a look at his genitals. Whole thing took ~15 minutes. I am still getting bills for it. Turns out he just needed to go to the bathroom more. Every couple months I get another bill for ~$40 for some other doctor or company. Its crazy. The whole system is designed to bleed people.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        It's good to hear that you're happy with increasing taxes, but I'm afraid that most people in the US that aren't scraping by won't be quite as enthusiastic. Higher wages, lower taxes (on everything, from income to property to fuel/power to sales ...), it does help. And make no mistake: Germany's public health system works only because of our parallel private insurance system. Doctor's can't run their offices with public insurance patients, because the amounts they can bill are strictly limited per quarter. They make the money they need to survive on the private insurance patients that pay ~2.5 times as much and will pay per visit/procedure, not per quarter. Of course, this also creates a two-tier system with the private insurances getting the good treatment and everyone else having to wait quite a while to get an appointment, not getting quite a few treatments (e.g. eye glasses, unless you're basically legally blind). You're on HN, so you're most likely a skilled knowledge worker. You'll be greeted with open arms in Europe. Vote with your feet, give it a try. I don't believe that you'll see substantial change in the US, too many people (regular people too!) profit from the individualist approach.
        wonderwonder 6y ago
        I hear what you are saying regarding a two tier system. The system is likely 2 tier though due to underfunding, lets fund it properly. In addition, even a two tier system provides for people to get affordable preventative care, something the US is lacking. By catching problems in the beginning you optimally prevent the massive costly issues that occur when an issue has been left unchecked and untreated. As far as moving to another country, I have no need to, I make a large amount of money here and can afford the health care bills. I want the change for people that are not as advantaged as I am. I am willing to pay more so that they can get it. As far as change in the US happening soon, I don't know. I think we are at an inflection point with more and more people desiring a change. People are losing their jobs right now and with it their health insurance. The election will potentially be a referendum on increased publicly available insurance.
        luckylion 6y ago
        I do very much agree with you on principle regarding a well functioning health system and e.g. catching things early, using preventive medicine etc. You'll find that it doesn't really work though. Having medical care does not magically turn people into rational patients that will take care of themselves (in fact, I fear the opposite: knowing you're covered no matter what may change your risk profile, which is known as Vollkaskomentalität in German, the mentality that creeps in when you know that everything is paid for). The US healthcare system is a mess, I don't disagree. I don't believe there are any cheap & easy options to change it however. The grass is always greener on the other side of the Atlantic, but sometimes that's just because tales of success are spread around the world while the problems stay in the local news.
    - clairity 6y ago
      no, quick napkin math: the US military budget is officially $700B, but more thorough accounting pegs is at $1T+. $800B is roughly $2400 for every american per year, but if only 10% need assistance in any given year, that's a safety net of $24K each. that's not nothing, and it still leaves $200B+ for the military (which is still more than every other country and roughly equivalent to that of the #2 country, china, which itself is 4x larger than #3). and that excludes the knock-on effects of encouraging economic risk-taking resulting from a functioning safety net.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        I do believe you'll need significantly more than that, but would be happy to be convinced otherwise. As for the encouraged economic risk-taking: we'd see that in Europe, wouldn't we? We don't. Maybe putting a damper on how much of the reward for taking the risk you get to keep decreases the willingness to take it in the first place. We're seeing pretty similar effects: multi-generational poverty, very low social mobility (lower than in the US according to some studies). We're just "keeping the social peace" by doing more redistribution, it does not appear to change anything beyond the immediate redistribution.
    - cycomanic 6y ago
      I encourage you to look up the top bracket marginal tax rate in the US in the 50s and 60s, the period that is generally considered the golden area. It's the idiology of trickle down economics that somehow instilled the concept of high taxes for the richest are bad, even though it was never based on evidence (just some handwaving theory why it should work) and in fact has been proven again and again to not work. So yes short answer make the rich pay their fair share.
      - erik_seaberg 6y ago
        Trickle down economics plus globalization worked pretty well for very poor workers in other countries. They just bypassed US workers, because the sheer cost of living makes us uncompetitive in most industries.
- xkde 6y ago
  @subhobroto Today is when you learn that facts and reality are not popular on HN.
  - karatestomp 6y ago
    The rest of the OECD seem pretty real, and mostly seem to do alright.
  - subhobroto 6y ago
    Fair enough, although if you look at my posting history, you will see I learned that years ago :D Just look at my post about Youtube censoring COVID19 from yesterday. I continue to post because among the 1000 downvotes, there's one person who emails me and we start on a great relationship together! That 1 person makes all the noise and "You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks." - which is what happens when you post highly flagged comments that stops you posting on here anything at all for hours on end, essentially silencing you, worth it :)
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  The taxpayers obviously. Funny enough, most developed nations manage it. Instead we choose to spend our money on extravagant military spending and massive subsidies to the wealthiest corporations and individuals.
- kirstenbirgit 6y ago
  "Government" implies taxes. While we're paying high taxes here in Denmark (about 38-50% income tax depending on your bracket), we don't spend a lot of money on things like health insurance like you do in US.

subhobroto 6y ago

> having no real safety net from the government WHO pays for that? Is there a free lunch?

wonderwonder 6y ago
I'd be willing to contribute towards it. In fact, feel free to take 80% of the funds I put towards the military into the safety net. In addition, take all of the tax money they take from me and give to fossil fuels as well and put it toward it. Then if you want to create a universal health care, feel free to take my monthly contributions that I make towards health insurance. In addition, who is paying for the trillions we are pumping into boeing and the airlines right now. We always have money for war and well connected companies but never have enough funding for basic human decency.
- luckylion 6y ago
  80% of the military budget won't cut it though. Social safety nets cost a lot of money. Yes, the US spends ridiculous amounts on the military (though on the other hand: that military is what gives them global dominance, which also is worth a lot of money), but just cutting that back won't give you a European style safety net. You'll have to increase taxes by a lot for everyone making more than the median, increase sales tax etc, essentially: pay more, not just reshuffle what you pay now.
  - wonderwonder 6y ago
    That's fine, increase taxes. Universal health care would also lead to greater bargaining power in regards to drugs, drastically reducing cost. Maybe insulin wont cost 10 times in the US what it costs in other developed nations. I already pay a large portion of my check towards health insurance, so does my employer. Route those funds towards Universal Healthcare. We can just call them taxes. This should not really be an argument. We are discussing whether it is appropriate for us to pay a bit more on taxes or to allow people to die. I fall into the more taxes side of the debate. I have good health insurance right now. Maybe a little TMI so be warned. I took my 7 year old kid to get something looked at a little over a year ago. He was experiencing burning when he urinated. They measured the flow of his urine and took a look at his genitals. Whole thing took ~15 minutes. I am still getting bills for it. Turns out he just needed to go to the bathroom more. Every couple months I get another bill for ~$40 for some other doctor or company. Its crazy. The whole system is designed to bleed people.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      It's good to hear that you're happy with increasing taxes, but I'm afraid that most people in the US that aren't scraping by won't be quite as enthusiastic. Higher wages, lower taxes (on everything, from income to property to fuel/power to sales ...), it does help. And make no mistake: Germany's public health system works only because of our parallel private insurance system. Doctor's can't run their offices with public insurance patients, because the amounts they can bill are strictly limited per quarter. They make the money they need to survive on the private insurance patients that pay ~2.5 times as much and will pay per visit/procedure, not per quarter. Of course, this also creates a two-tier system with the private insurances getting the good treatment and everyone else having to wait quite a while to get an appointment, not getting quite a few treatments (e.g. eye glasses, unless you're basically legally blind). You're on HN, so you're most likely a skilled knowledge worker. You'll be greeted with open arms in Europe. Vote with your feet, give it a try. I don't believe that you'll see substantial change in the US, too many people (regular people too!) profit from the individualist approach.
      - wonderwonder 6y ago
        I hear what you are saying regarding a two tier system. The system is likely 2 tier though due to underfunding, lets fund it properly. In addition, even a two tier system provides for people to get affordable preventative care, something the US is lacking. By catching problems in the beginning you optimally prevent the massive costly issues that occur when an issue has been left unchecked and untreated. As far as moving to another country, I have no need to, I make a large amount of money here and can afford the health care bills. I want the change for people that are not as advantaged as I am. I am willing to pay more so that they can get it. As far as change in the US happening soon, I don't know. I think we are at an inflection point with more and more people desiring a change. People are losing their jobs right now and with it their health insurance. The election will potentially be a referendum on increased publicly available insurance.
        luckylion 6y ago
        I do very much agree with you on principle regarding a well functioning health system and e.g. catching things early, using preventive medicine etc. You'll find that it doesn't really work though. Having medical care does not magically turn people into rational patients that will take care of themselves (in fact, I fear the opposite: knowing you're covered no matter what may change your risk profile, which is known as Vollkaskomentalität in German, the mentality that creeps in when you know that everything is paid for). The US healthcare system is a mess, I don't disagree. I don't believe there are any cheap & easy options to change it however. The grass is always greener on the other side of the Atlantic, but sometimes that's just because tales of success are spread around the world while the problems stay in the local news.
  - clairity 6y ago
    no, quick napkin math: the US military budget is officially $700B, but more thorough accounting pegs is at $1T+. $800B is roughly $2400 for every american per year, but if only 10% need assistance in any given year, that's a safety net of $24K each. that's not nothing, and it still leaves $200B+ for the military (which is still more than every other country and roughly equivalent to that of the #2 country, china, which itself is 4x larger than #3). and that excludes the knock-on effects of encouraging economic risk-taking resulting from a functioning safety net.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      I do believe you'll need significantly more than that, but would be happy to be convinced otherwise. As for the encouraged economic risk-taking: we'd see that in Europe, wouldn't we? We don't. Maybe putting a damper on how much of the reward for taking the risk you get to keep decreases the willingness to take it in the first place. We're seeing pretty similar effects: multi-generational poverty, very low social mobility (lower than in the US according to some studies). We're just "keeping the social peace" by doing more redistribution, it does not appear to change anything beyond the immediate redistribution.
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    I encourage you to look up the top bracket marginal tax rate in the US in the 50s and 60s, the period that is generally considered the golden area. It's the idiology of trickle down economics that somehow instilled the concept of high taxes for the richest are bad, even though it was never based on evidence (just some handwaving theory why it should work) and in fact has been proven again and again to not work. So yes short answer make the rich pay their fair share.
    - erik_seaberg 6y ago
      Trickle down economics plus globalization worked pretty well for very poor workers in other countries. They just bypassed US workers, because the sheer cost of living makes us uncompetitive in most industries.
xkde 6y ago
@subhobroto Today is when you learn that facts and reality are not popular on HN.
- karatestomp 6y ago
  The rest of the OECD seem pretty real, and mostly seem to do alright.
- subhobroto 6y ago
  Fair enough, although if you look at my posting history, you will see I learned that years ago :D Just look at my post about Youtube censoring COVID19 from yesterday. I continue to post because among the 1000 downvotes, there's one person who emails me and we start on a great relationship together! That 1 person makes all the noise and "You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks." - which is what happens when you post highly flagged comments that stops you posting on here anything at all for hours on end, essentially silencing you, worth it :)
CydeWeys 6y ago
The taxpayers obviously. Funny enough, most developed nations manage it. Instead we choose to spend our money on extravagant military spending and massive subsidies to the wealthiest corporations and individuals.
kirstenbirgit 6y ago
"Government" implies taxes. While we're paying high taxes here in Denmark (about 38-50% income tax depending on your bracket), we don't spend a lot of money on things like health insurance like you do in US.