3 ms·

Socialist health care systems aren't "free". They come at a great cost, in the form of high taxation, government debt, inflexibility, and inefficiency. In Cana

Socialist health care systems aren't "free". They come at a great cost, in the form of high taxation, government debt, inflexibility, and inefficiency. In Canada, for example, patients who have the financial means to do so will often seek treatment at private clinics in the US or other nations, rather than enduring the "free" socialist health care system in their province. To make matters even worse, despite paying high tax rates, many Canadians still rely on private health insurance to pay for the many routine vision, dental, and pharmaceutical costs that aren't covered by the socialist health care systems.

zamadatix 4y ago
I do wish it were referred to as "single payer" or what have you instead of "free". Not because I think it's really fooling many people into thinking it somehow makes healthcare cost nothing to society as a whole but because it constantly detracts conversation into pointing out that it still bears a cost. I don't think any implementation of any healthcare model in any country is without people who wished it served them better who may be interested in pursuing alternatives to it. As such comparisons which only talk about how an option isn't without problems does little to really answer which options are preferable. At best this informational alone will only tell you half the story needed. I've never really seen a solid way to compare how effective different healthcare models are though. It's hard enough to detangle the impact of the funding model from other factors at one point in time let alone over decades between countries.
elcritch 4y ago
> They come at a great cost, in the form of high taxation, government debt, inflexibility, and inefficiency. That sounds great on paper, but I've become skeptical of the catchphrase. Total tax rates in the USA don't seem that much lower for individuals. Many charts of tax rates are based on taxes as a share of GDP which IMHO isn't useful. I just looked up the tax rates in German and California (both high economic centers). It seems Germany is about ~38% vs a total rate in California of ~33%. There are states in the US that don't have income tax like Wyoming, but overall the state income taxes are about ~6-8%. Top tax rates in California are higher than in Germany too. Also the US corporate tax is 35%, of course only for those corps that can't afford setting up tax shelters, like Google and Apple, etc. In the EU it's 15%, though the use taxes are higher vs sales taxes. So taxes are a bit lower in the US they don't seem significantly lower, especially in states with high economic output (and jobs) like California and New York. I'm not pro high taxes. For example I'm a fan of lowering the US corporate tax and closing the tax haven / Bermuda tax shenanigans. It does seem that the US takes almost as many taxes but provide less services and bang for the buck at the same time. 1: https://bvcocpas.com/how-the-united-states-tax-rates-compares-to-germany/ https://bvcocpas.com/how-the-united-states-tax-rates-compare...

zamadatix 4y ago

I do wish it were referred to as "single payer" or what have you instead of "free". Not because I think it's really fooling many people into thinking it somehow makes healthcare cost nothing to society as a whole but because it constantly detracts conversation into pointing out that it still bears a cost. I don't think any implementation of any healthcare model in any country is without people who wished it served them better who may be interested in pursuing alternatives to it. As such comparisons which only talk about how an option isn't without problems does little to really answer which options are preferable. At best this informational alone will only tell you half the story needed. I've never really seen a solid way to compare how effective different healthcare models are though. It's hard enough to detangle the impact of the funding model from other factors at one point in time let alone over decades between countries.

elcritch 4y ago

> They come at a great cost, in the form of high taxation, government debt, inflexibility, and inefficiency. That sounds great on paper, but I've become skeptical of the catchphrase. Total tax rates in the USA don't seem that much lower for individuals. Many charts of tax rates are based on taxes as a share of GDP which IMHO isn't useful. I just looked up the tax rates in German and California (both high economic centers). It seems Germany is about ~38% vs a total rate in California of ~33%. There are states in the US that don't have income tax like Wyoming, but overall the state income taxes are about ~6-8%. Top tax rates in California are higher than in Germany too. Also the US corporate tax is 35%, of course only for those corps that can't afford setting up tax shelters, like Google and Apple, etc. In the EU it's 15%, though the use taxes are higher vs sales taxes. So taxes are a bit lower in the US they don't seem significantly lower, especially in states with high economic output (and jobs) like California and New York. I'm not pro high taxes. For example I'm a fan of lowering the US corporate tax and closing the tax haven / Bermuda tax shenanigans. It does seem that the US takes almost as many taxes but provide less services and bang for the buck at the same time. 1: https://bvcocpas.com/how-the-united-states-tax-rates-compares-to-germany/ https://bvcocpas.com/how-the-united-states-tax-rates-compare...