You might want to think again about "free" socialist medicine

Where you live. Where I live it is a National Healthcare System and the cost is assumed by the state.

The first in the process of adopting a National Healthcare System was the UK, just after WW2. Which is why it has the best in the world today, whilst that of the US is the tail not wagging the dog. See PERFORMANCE Rankings here:


Note that the above is an alphabetical listing. Overall Ranking is shown by a grading number.

 

Oh bullshit too. The employer keeps that for himself. Same as he does the tax break he's been given to "expand his business" Businesses operate according to SUPPLY AND DEMAND, as do wages and business expansion. They employer will pay you exactly enough to keep you from walking out the door, not one penny greater, and he will expand his business when he sees a market for more of his product, or he will support a warehouse while ceasing to operate. Supply side is truly VooDoo as George H.K. so rightly called it.

 

Your taxes?
Too funny

 

No, the cost is not assumed by the 'state', since the 'state' has no independent means of income. The cost is assumed by the taxpayers, with, making the assumption, is you et al. The use of the 'state' as an entity may lessen the blow for some to realize, you are paying for it somewhere along the line. I prefer to know where my money is going, and having some, if minimal, control over it. While I disagree with some of the US government's spending habits, there are some I have no problem with. The mandated requirement of paying for insurance for people who may or may not use it, and not actually receiving the care, is pissing money in the wind, IMO. Sliding scale clinics would better serve the purpose, where they actually receive care, at rates they can afford to pay. Yes, the taxpayer pays for it, but as I said previously, they have actually received the care that the taxpayer is paying for.

 

Gee. I feel the same way about Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesnt seem to work out that way in practice now though does it?

 

I didn’t have anything to do with A-Stan or Iraq. But I’ll bet you had health insurance...

 

Sure do. Great insurance too. Thanks.

 

Thanks for increasing everyone’s costs.

 

If you want to remain blind to the facts, that's your business.

But here are the facts in easy view for you to swallow whole (from here):

If you'd rather live in a country with stagnating Life Expectancy - because that number you see for 2014 is the very same as it is today. And whyzat?

Because any advance since then and over the last five years has led to an increase and then a decrease back to the above age of 79. Why? Mostly because of opioids. (Which were never authorized here in Europe. So, producers dumped them in the US.)

Whilst in the meantime (over the past decade) here in Europe our lifespan has progressed another two years.

Yeah, so, eat your heart out because you refuse to face the factual evidence* ...

*The decline was brought about by the recent opiate-addiction that was permitted because no government institution legally withheld the pills from the market! To date more than 50,000 people have died in the US due to opiates. THAT is what a country gets when it doesn't have an NHS to approve medications with their proper warnings and doctor's approval/oversite!

 

True enough. But a long time ago, in Yugoslavia, they tried another way. That is, workers elected members to the BoD. Not a majority direction, because Yugoslavia at the time (it no longer exists) remained attach to free-markets. But workers did vote at least two members to BoD of large-companies and one two smaller companies just to interface with the owner.

Many of those countries were members of my-market (for computers) and I visited them regularly. I was quite impressed by the ability for workers to elect members of the BoD. Why not? Why must BoDs be packed with select people who are all friends of other Board Members?

Would it hurt for large companies (say, more than 50 people) to have someone represent workers on the BoD? Methinks not, and quite the opposite. Workers would feel more attached to their company ...

 

But..but...that's SOCIALISM.

Well, not really but close enough that all the Trumpers will have conniptions


t

 

Moving the goal posts, and not addressing my post, is an overwhelming sign of an inability to actually respond to what was posted.

You have very nicely side stepped the facts I presented, and while you are free to do so, it is glaringly obvious that you prefer to let the 'state' take care of you, while being at their whim. I have dealt with 'factual evidence'. The UK has a set of it's own issues such as drug problems (heroin), of which I am intimately acquainted. People are able to MAIL drugs to each other, and deal them via internet.... glasses houses and all that, but yet you try and claim high ground?

Try and educate yourself on what really goes on in your high and mighty NHS, and the civilians around it.

 

Delete duplicate

 

As a Brit, if you live in Britain and according to recent analysis*, you have the best Healthcare system on earth and yet you remain oblivious to that fact. The state IS taking care of you!

So what? Consider yourself lucky and enough of the diatribe!

Your response is just personal invective. Useless in any Real Debate.

Moving right along ...

*See here.

 

Who cares? Most were born ignorant and as Trumpers they remain ignorant to basic facts.

It was the Replicants who hired the key-manipulators of Gerrymandering in state elections. These people made a well-paid career out of helping Replicant parties to rearrange state voting districts to favor their party in elections to Congress. (And it is the Electoral College that manipulates the vote of the PotUS.)

As for the Electoral College, that manipulation of state-outcomes of the Popular Vote is almost as old as the country itself. And nobody, but nobody, has risen to correct it in more than two-centuries!

(Do Americans fully understand that Private Healthcare paid for by companies is recuperated in the cost of the product or service the company offers. Meaning that all American shoppers are subsidizing a private health-care service to which only those working for a company that proposes it have access? (See that yet again in the infographic here.)

The Right in America has no valid reason for an existence, except (1) finance the election of candidates who support low upper-income taxation and (2) to rail at the idea of a National Healthcare System that would drastically reduce incomes of the MDs. These latter are bilking the American public with their high-incomes ($200K on average for a GP) and a lack of generalized HC-services to most Americans. (Which is why Uncle Sam is last in the ranking of key-country Healthcare systems that I posted earlier in this forum.)

And yet, America puts up with them. No wonder so many Yanks come and decide to live in Europe - Healthcare is a key component to longevity.

Period ...

PS: But the facts have been known for quite some time. An country comparatie OECD-study in matter amongst developed economies was published in 2011. Apparently few Americans have taken notice of the damning consequences of that study. (See it here.) Privatized healthcare in America is a rip-off of the general public. Always has been, always will be. And, most importantly, National Healthcare Systems are a key determinant of lifespan-longevity!
PPS: An historical reference to the first election after Washington to the presidency here. The Right and the Left have been fighting this out every presidential election since the debut of the nation. But nobody mentions the underlying manipulations of the popular-vote. No one!

 

Why is it so hard to look up numbers and why is it so tempting to make up some nonsense just to make one's political ideology look good?
Neither is the average income tax in Europe "in the middle of 45%" nor is the average valued added tax 25%, it would have taken a few minutes to look that up. Sadly, when facts get in the way of some people's political narrative, these people feel the urge to lie. Why these false claims? Besides, as others have already said, no sane person would every claim that universal healthcare is free, it's not and only a simple-minded fool with a political agenda would make that claim.

Median income tax rates (this is not an average of 45%):
Netherlands 30,5%
Belgium 39,8%
Finnland 30%
Italy 31,4%
Austria 32%
Denmark 35,8%
Germany 39,7%
France 28,7%
Portugal 26,8%
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highest-taxes-in-the-world.html

Value added tax rates.
Netherlands 21%
Belgium 21%
Finnland 24%
Italy 22%
Austria 20%
Denmark 25%
Germany 19%
France 20%
Spain 21%
Luxembourg 17%
https://taxfoundation.org/vat-rates-europe-2019/

 

Let's add in that other "Socialist" country New Zealand.

The Median tax rate is around 25% with a Goods and Services tax rate of 17.5%.

 

Where did you get the idea I live in the UK? Details, they are important.

 

And what - pray tell - is the point of your input above ... ?

PS: Were you a mathematician you would know that median values have very little meaning. What matters is the distribution of Income and thus Wealth.

 

My comment was referring to the highly incorrect OP of this thread which made usage of fantasy numbers in order to get a political agenda across. In other words, using lies to make false claims. That user could have looked up those numbers but prefered to create their own alternative reality. I pointed that out. Should be clear now, I'd say.

 

If that is the case, you should have "quoted" those lies and respond in the same message ...

 

Excellent! It's about time they had some wakey-wakey ..

 

BlahBlahBlah.

If you want to rebut in a DEBATE forum, then do so properly. If you found someone's argument inconsistent with factual evidence - then PROVE IT with factual evidence!

Otherwise you are just wasting your and our time. This site wastes bandwidth enough with emotional outpouring. Those who do should go cry elsewhere ... ...

 

That's Conventional Marketing theory, and Healthcare should not be considered a business. Europe has seen the light after WW2 but Uncle Sam is still in its Age of Darkness when it comes to socio-economic matters. Healthcare cannot be a "business", no more than police-work or firefighting.

The notion of Social-Services (including those two just mentioned) is well embedded in the EU, but it seems that America is still lost on the moon. Too many people (including the ultra-rich who need not give a damn about free Healthcare) keep bitching-'n-moaning about Obamacare. They would get rid of it tomorrow, if they could. Which is a public-service that is highly constrained due to high-prices and therefore incomparable with European National Healthcare Services.

And, as I have said clearly before (in this forum) because businesses pay for it, then the entire consumer-population must pays the cost because it is incorporated in the product/service-pricing of all businesses. Everybody pays ultimately when they buy most products/services. But the primary reason being that for individuals and small companies the private-insurance is too damn expensive! (A GP in America earns about $200K a year - so SOMEBODY has to pay for the cost. Thus, why not (finally) EVERYBODY!

Which is why, when it comes to serious comparisons, most analyses of Healthcare Systems rate the US at or near the bottom of the Top-Ten List of countries. Precisely because of What It Does Not Do - which is the lack of total-coverage of the population at lowest possible cost* ...

*And if the LPC is somewhere out in the private-domain, then I certainly haven't discovered it in the US! Competition, boyz-'n-girlz, does not succeed at keeping prices acceptable when it comes to many such key public-services. For instance, the DoD. Now why is that paid-for by the government and not an NHS?

 

I posted factual evidence incl. sources, I didn't 'cry', what nonsense.
No reason to reply to my comment twice. If you don't like my comments, don't read, don't reply, just stay away. Very simple.
Your self fabricated rules mean nothing. Bladios.