4 ms·

Exactly. I feel the same way about GoFundMe campaigns for medical bills. On one hand, I'm happy that some of them can get outside help, on the other hand why i

Exactly. I feel the same way about GoFundMe campaigns for medical bills. On one hand, I'm happy that some of them can get outside help, on the other hand why is a GoFundMe campaign necessary to stay afloat?

pembrook 6y ago
What’s so ironic about GoFundMe is that it’s basically a diorama of how socialized medical care would work (minus the cost savings), and yet nobody has any political objections to socialized funding when it happens there. I recall debating with a friend who was against socialized healthcare recently, and then seeing them promote a GoFundMe campaign for a mutual friend’s medical bills on Facebook a few days later. The irony was lost on him. I think the key is that Americans love to dream of themselves as wealthy philanthropists (no matter how poor they actually are). If there was a way to make paying taxes feel more like philanthropy, maybe we could solve this. Maybe it’s as simple as giving everybody a certificate with a list of anonymized names and what treatments they helped pay for, so they can brag about it on Facebook. “I helped pay for a child’s chemotherapy” instead of “the government took my money”
- trynewideas 6y ago
  Taxes in the US are labeled (accurately, but perceived negatively) around what you have — income tax, property tax, sales tax. For the most part, they aren't labeled for what they _do_ (other than Social Security and Medicare taxes, programs to which cuts are political poison). If federal taxes were broken down to, say, defense taxes, infrastructure taxes, health taxes, administrative taxes, and people saw how much of what they pay goes into each fund, it would be much closer to what you describe. For instance, people would be more aware that twice as much of the tax-derived budget goes into defense and international security than to safety net programs. And people might also be more wary of actions that grow the federal debt — both spending and high-income-earning tax cuts — if they saw that more of their tax money goes to paying off its interest than toward funding infrastructure, education, and science and medical research combined. Instead, that information is buried in federal reports and reported with the perception of being policy wonkery. It doesn't have a personal impact. Seeing what you remit to the government broken down by what it's spent on would drive it home much as having Social Security and Medicare as line-items on paystubs does.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    > For instance, people would be more aware that twice as much of the tax-derived budget goes into defense and international security than to safety net programs. do you not consider medicare, medicaid, and social security to be safety net programs?
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >nobody has any political objections to socialized funding when it happens there. Nobody in your filter bubble. There's plenty of people who don't like "internet panhandling"
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > I recall debating with a friend who was against socialized healthcare recently, and then seeing them promote a GoFundMe campaign for a mutual friend’s medical bills on Facebook a few days later. > The irony was lost on him. I think the key is that Americans love to dream of themselves as wealthy philanthropists (no matter how poor they actually are). I'm not sure I see the irony either. if I'm understanding correctly, your friends pooled their own money together to help someone they knew and cared about. how is this similar to socialized healthcare at scale?
  - chasd00 6y ago
    right, the gofundme is voluntary socialized medicine is mandatory. People don't like being told what to do but, given the chance, will usually volunteer.
  - pembrook 6y ago
    Because at scale, countries are also just a group of people pooling resources to achieve greater outcomes. The only difference between micro-socialized funding (GoFundMe) and macro-socialized funding (government healthcare) is that the government version results in massive cost savings for the entire system. Micro-socialization is the worst of both worlds. No cost savings, no preventative care, and only the most sensational and dramatic ailments receive GoFundMe support from peers. For proof of the cost savings, look at the cost of X given procedure in any developed country with socialized care (Australia, Sweden, Germany, etc.) and then compare it to the US. In the US it will cost anywhere from 2X-10X more to do X given procedure. It's not even worth citing any research since there's mountains of studies proving this.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      > Because at scale, countries are also just a group of people pooling resources to achieve greater outcomes. > The only difference between micro-socialized funding (GoFundMe) and macro-socialized funding (government healthcare) is that the government version results in massive cost savings for the entire system. there is a key difference though. in one case, a group of elected representatives is deciding what to do with everyone's resources. in the other, individuals are deciding what to do with their own resources. at a high level, they look pretty similar: a group pooling resources to help someone. but the control over allocation is completely different. this is a really important distinction to understand. most people are a lot more willing to give their resources to friends/family than to random strangers. your (compelling to me!) argument about efficiency will not convince people if you don't acknowledge the allocation part.

pembrook 6y ago

What’s so ironic about GoFundMe is that it’s basically a diorama of how socialized medical care would work (minus the cost savings), and yet nobody has any political objections to socialized funding when it happens there. I recall debating with a friend who was against socialized healthcare recently, and then seeing them promote a GoFundMe campaign for a mutual friend’s medical bills on Facebook a few days later. The irony was lost on him. I think the key is that Americans love to dream of themselves as wealthy philanthropists (no matter how poor they actually are). If there was a way to make paying taxes feel more like philanthropy, maybe we could solve this. Maybe it’s as simple as giving everybody a certificate with a list of anonymized names and what treatments they helped pay for, so they can brag about it on Facebook. “I helped pay for a child’s chemotherapy” instead of “the government took my money”

trynewideas 6y ago
Taxes in the US are labeled (accurately, but perceived negatively) around what you have — income tax, property tax, sales tax. For the most part, they aren't labeled for what they _do_ (other than Social Security and Medicare taxes, programs to which cuts are political poison). If federal taxes were broken down to, say, defense taxes, infrastructure taxes, health taxes, administrative taxes, and people saw how much of what they pay goes into each fund, it would be much closer to what you describe. For instance, people would be more aware that twice as much of the tax-derived budget goes into defense and international security than to safety net programs. And people might also be more wary of actions that grow the federal debt — both spending and high-income-earning tax cuts — if they saw that more of their tax money goes to paying off its interest than toward funding infrastructure, education, and science and medical research combined. Instead, that information is buried in federal reports and reported with the perception of being policy wonkery. It doesn't have a personal impact. Seeing what you remit to the government broken down by what it's spent on would drive it home much as having Social Security and Medicare as line-items on paystubs does.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > For instance, people would be more aware that twice as much of the tax-derived budget goes into defense and international security than to safety net programs. do you not consider medicare, medicaid, and social security to be safety net programs?
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>nobody has any political objections to socialized funding when it happens there. Nobody in your filter bubble. There's plenty of people who don't like "internet panhandling"
leetcrew 6y ago
> I recall debating with a friend who was against socialized healthcare recently, and then seeing them promote a GoFundMe campaign for a mutual friend’s medical bills on Facebook a few days later. > The irony was lost on him. I think the key is that Americans love to dream of themselves as wealthy philanthropists (no matter how poor they actually are). I'm not sure I see the irony either. if I'm understanding correctly, your friends pooled their own money together to help someone they knew and cared about. how is this similar to socialized healthcare at scale?
- chasd00 6y ago
  right, the gofundme is voluntary socialized medicine is mandatory. People don't like being told what to do but, given the chance, will usually volunteer.
- pembrook 6y ago
  Because at scale, countries are also just a group of people pooling resources to achieve greater outcomes. The only difference between micro-socialized funding (GoFundMe) and macro-socialized funding (government healthcare) is that the government version results in massive cost savings for the entire system. Micro-socialization is the worst of both worlds. No cost savings, no preventative care, and only the most sensational and dramatic ailments receive GoFundMe support from peers. For proof of the cost savings, look at the cost of X given procedure in any developed country with socialized care (Australia, Sweden, Germany, etc.) and then compare it to the US. In the US it will cost anywhere from 2X-10X more to do X given procedure. It's not even worth citing any research since there's mountains of studies proving this.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    > Because at scale, countries are also just a group of people pooling resources to achieve greater outcomes. > The only difference between micro-socialized funding (GoFundMe) and macro-socialized funding (government healthcare) is that the government version results in massive cost savings for the entire system. there is a key difference though. in one case, a group of elected representatives is deciding what to do with everyone's resources. in the other, individuals are deciding what to do with their own resources. at a high level, they look pretty similar: a group pooling resources to help someone. but the control over allocation is completely different. this is a really important distinction to understand. most people are a lot more willing to give their resources to friends/family than to random strangers. your (compelling to me!) argument about efficiency will not convince people if you don't acknowledge the allocation part.