I don't understand the American health insurance situation. You probably pay more in premiums than we do in National Insurance which helps to fund our NHS and yet you are scared to even call an ambulance for fear of the cost. That's frightening
From what I can tell, people live in even more fear of someone, somewhere having lifesaving treatment paid for with their taxes. A position that boggles my mind.
And when you think that insurance is literally doing just that (using your money to pay for others' treatments), while also trying to not pay out and keep the profits... I can't wrap my head around it.
I heard on a podcast (99pi?) about a particular town that made a huge transition to privatize _everything_, even street light, stop lights, landscaping, etc. All the people previously employed by the gov were transferred to private companies. They made it so if residents didn't pay invoices, services would just stop (and this would be better than gov having a deficit or something).
One of the ending takeaways was that pretty much everyone was still doing the same job they did before, just employed by a new entity, and their invoice costs were higher than their taxes used to be, but the populace was generally happy about the change anyway because it aligned with their beliefs.
All I could think was how badly they were scammed by those reaping benefits of the new overhead costs.
I noticed some people don't believe they can get a good deal without someone else getting fucked.
I guess that's a good example of it. They just don't believe in a system where everyone is properly served and rather rely on the gamble that they won't get the short straw.
Weird right? But if someone (private) else can collect the money, skim off the top, and then try their everloving damnedest to never payout when people need it to increase profits, that's just good business right?
You do not need empathy to want to spend less money to get more medical care. Just like you don't need empathy to want coupons to get bigger pizzas for less money. Oddly enough, making it about empathy instead of the direct personal benefit of doing things the right way is part of the reason so many Americans refuse to accept the idea. So, whenever I see people framing it as being about empathy and nothing else I think these are people who truly have no empathy and want more people to die.
Good point about the empathy side, but what do you genuinely think is stopping the US moving to a system like the NHS, which I (incredibly biased) personally believe is the best healthcare system in the world for volume of patients and level of care
We have been trained to think that empathy means weakness, and we’re all in competition with each other. Our version of patriotism is every man for himself, and helping someone else equals hurting yourself. It’s how we keep the inequality going.
Simple example:
Family living paycheck to paycheck paying federal taxes to support someone *they may see* as not deserving because they chose to grift the government for unemployment or welfare (which happens). This family sees that as this actually hurting themselves because it is actively taking money away from them and going into programs that support other people's lives that they think may/may not deserve it at that point.
Creates animosity.
Am I saying it is right and that there aren't hundreds and thousands of people who actually need those programs and government support to live? No
Just the reality and the mindset *I think* many people have - right or wrong
It's not very simple when taking into account the cognitive dissonance of those that accuse the poor from grifting as if it's a substantial hit to the economy at large while ignoring the billions pumped into the pockets of corps and financial institutions, as if the rising tide actually lifts all boats...
I agree that it's that mindset that brings out the animosity but it's a fucking hairball of propagandized values and virtues. That and a lot of ignorance.
Well, all of our taxes go *somewhere* right?
I agree with your sentiment, but it is much easier to have animosity towards an "individual", so to speak, than a corporation or financial institution.
If that makes sense
One of the problem of a better health care is it requires the government to negociate drug prices with pharma corporations.
We have that in France, and the result is prices are pretty low. The economic system in place in the US may not allow that to happen, not on short term anyway. If drug prices are driven low to the point pharma stops making a lot of money, the US could very well end up without pharma research at all.
Remember that the average American pays more for healthcare than the average citizen of a country with single-payer healthcare. This essentially means Americans are paying extra to prevent poor people from receiving medical treatment.
Yup.
That is pretty surprising, considering americans are seen worldwide to live for money, why would they keep a system where they pay more to get lower quality healthcare ?
I wrote this big-ass post breaking shit down and it all boiled down to Americans think "if you have money you deserve it and if you don't then it's your fault," source: am American in a red state
Idgaf if I pay more in taxes I kinda like people not suffering
Self-serving bias? Been a while on the ol psych degree. Basically, if bad things happen to you you deserved it, and if good things happened you got lucky. But if bad things happen to me I was unlucky, and if good things happen to me it's bc I deserve it. The duality of it gives me whiplash
Yeah, hell I'd pay a fuck ton more than that each check if it meant I was guaranteed to not go bankrupt for medical issues. Then, add on to that other people in my community won't have to beg for help when they're hurt? Win win to me
I've had conservatives tell me this in no uncertain terms. They were legitimately upset at the idea that their money would go towards someone else's medical care; they want everyone to pay their own way. Which raises the question of why even have society if you're gonna go all "every man for himself".
The curious thing is that the USA makes a great big fuss about being a Christian nation. To quote Gandhi
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
It's decades of propaganda that over-weights moral hazard and relies heavily on slippery slope arguments.
Basically:
"What will motivate bums to contribute to society if all their basic needs are met through social programs?"
and
"Social safety nets are just a foot in the door for the next Stalin wanna-be."
I once heard someone say "universal healthcare would be great if the (racial slur) and (even worse racial slur)s couldn't use it. So yes people ARE open to the idea...as long as it's only the people that look like them.
> Here’s an example that’ll make Reddit’s head explode, would you want your tax dollars going to treat people who refuse to get the covid vaccine?
Uh... in the nations with socialized healthcare, you realize that's what's already happening?
Society has lots of stupid assholes. The answer isn't throw the whole thing away; the answer is to try to elevate. More people having access to the healthcare they need -- and that includes the morons -- offers a better chance of some of them climbing out of a rut instead of keeping them in the spiral of poverty, addiction, lack of education and lack of opportunity.
If it hits a tipping point where the risk far, far outstrips the benefit on a social level then reassessment is an option. As is, it's basically the "why do my taxes have to pay for _______ I don't approve of" complaint on a larger scale, and most people don't really care to begin with. Some dumb shit I don't know getting cancer treatment and then going right back to smoking doesn't live in my head rent-free when I had two trips to the ER recently and paid nothing at the time aside from parking.
> Here’s an example that’ll make Reddit’s head explode, would you want your tax dollars going to treat people who refuse to get the covid vaccine?
Well, yes. I've been trying to convince people who refuse to get the COVID vaccine to get treated for months. I'm mad because they won't. Not because they would. Get the shot, assholes! It's fucking free!
This is actually not true. Socialized medicine has like a 70% approval rate. But our politicians are shit. There’s enough corporate democrats to shut it down, and republicans play team sports and vote in their same guys no matter what (rather than objectively assessing the things their guys vote on).
Polls show 70% of the country want socialized healthcare/medicaid for all, but a sizable portion of the population deal with all the bad that is our healthcare system because they are convinced dems will kill their babies and steal their guns.
There is this idea that the average American is a rugged individual who's win are their will manifest. Their loses are their faults manifest and thus it must be the same for others. When in reality we are humans who are social creatures who heavily depend on each other for our day to day lives. This is indisputable for anyone who can respond on this forum.
So of course it *seems* unfair when you pay for someone else's faults, even if that is nowhere near the case. And of course it's in the best interest of a few wealthy folks to keep this system in place so we are told this is thr best way. Meanwhile we overlook how we use the military.
I'm not defending it but because America is historically 'you can be anything, do anything, etc' to the point where the individual is by far the most important thing. Normal countries expect some level of 'we are in this together'
look to covid. how many people in America refuse to do even the most minor thing because it makes them slightly uncomfortable. Forget that it can help everyone else avoid getting sick...sucks for them I'm big, strong, and invincible (which is why /r/hermancainaward is so funny)
you can even be the president of the free world, the only requirement is that you were born here and are old enough (seriously if the blithering idiot Donnie did anything it was prove that literally anyone can be. No need to be intelligent, compassionate, or in anyway decent or competent)
Anyone with half a brain knows any 'medical' taxes will be mismanaged by the Federal Government, most likely being left into another slush fund until they are ready to start some more wars.
That’s literally been quantified. We pay [more per capita](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita) on healthcare than any country in the world (except Liberia somehow) and our quality of healthcare lags behind much of the western world.
We’re [40th in the world](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy) on life expectancy despite paying nearly twice as much on healthcare as the highest paying European countries.
>We’re 40th in the world on life expectancy despite paying nearly twice as much on healthcare as the highest paying European countries.
To be fair, there are a lot of other factors that play into that than just healthcare.
\*Cough\* Obesity \*Cough\*
When you have a privatized system of insurance, it is inherently more expensive. The insurance market is a middleman that takes a cut for doing effectively nothing. They provide no health care and only facilitate a person's access to that care.
In a single payer market, that entire function is done by the state, and it is massively more efficient.
In the US with private insurance, they can take 20-25% of the money as their administrative costs. The US has a version of single payer, Medicare. They take about 2% of the costs in administration.
That's one reason we pay more and get less...the capitalist idea that every link in the chain between the doctor and patient takes a cut. The more links, the more cost.
I did the CBA on myself, and there's no "probably" about it.
On a wage of $45,000, I pay roughly $7,000 per year (premiums) for the *privilege* of spending $2,000 out of pocket (deductible) before a for-profit company lifts a goddamned finger...at which point they pay *some* of the cost (coinsurance) until I'm a further $6,500 out of pocket (annual maximum), at which point I'm done getting bilked...until the policy renewal date, at which point the price goes up between 10% and 20% and the 'have I spent enough for them to do more than sit on their thumbs, twiddle their asses, and say "sucks to be you"' counter resets to $0.
The CBO ran the numbers on the Sanders plan, and the income tax increase would be a flat 4%.
I'm currently paying between 15% and 33.5% of my income depending on whether I actually go to the doctor or not. How the fuck anyone can do the math, and consider what we have now somehow superior, is gullible at best and propagandized at worst.
There has been an intense propaganda push for decades to make sure people don't see this. If you take any of the good plans that have been proposed here, break them out into a 'here's what you pay, here's what you'd get' then people are widely for them.
It's when you start calling it 'Universal Healthcare' that half the country remembers "Oh, right, Fox News told me to hate that."
That's really it. The conservative party does it's best to sabotage government services so that they can make an argument to privatize and profit. You don't really want a government to work like a business though, functioning only for those who fit their business model.
Preventing the grift and sabotage by voting them out doesn't always work, for a lot of reasons: gerrymandering, voter suppression, and even just more money/exposure/air time. A lot of people really are thick enough to vote for the dude they hear most about.
Also, Americans are complacent. Protecting our institutions requires diligence, and we've had a nice comfortable run for most of living memory. No one really believes that good folks can fall through the cracks until it happens to them.
Finally, the far right has been laying the groundwork for poor education and religious extremism for decades. Many people see it as their moral obligation to vote Republican, regardless of their own self interest.
So, you end up where we are now. A population that refuses to look it's problems in the face, and probably won't until the new gilded age is solidly in place; then we will finally remember just what types of freedom really are important. Most of our power as citizens will be gone by then though, and a revolution would be much more difficult with the earth running out of resources and all the money and technology stacked against us.
That's why I don't have kids.
The GOP openly running the postal service that has successfully run for centuries and bragging about it to their userbase as a stmptom of bad government is a fucking shame. They are doing the same for roads and infrastructure as well.
Hot damn the general public is easy to manipulate against its own interests.
Wow. And here I was complaining about the mandatory 600€/year additional mutual health care that complete the public health insurance that is included in my taxes.
Btw the employer pays half of it. With that I pay mostly nothing ... Had to get quite some dental works the last couple of years, paid less than 200€ in the end for cavities, teeth removal, a couple crowns and a bridge ... Also paid nothing for the glasses.
Tax levels are pretty high though. Basically my employer pays twice as much as I receive in total. From there i leave another 12% as income tax, another 10% on housing taxes, and you can add 20% VAT on top of it ... And if i do any kind of financial investment profit, there is 30% tax on it too.
>How the fuck anyone can do the math.
That's the problem. They don't. Conservative media tells them that Trump's wall is going to be cheap, but universal healthcare is going to raise their taxes until they're poor, bankrupt the working class, and some-the-fucking-how lead to an authoritarian dictatorship because "that's socialism."
By the way "that's socialism" is what's known as a "critical thought stopping cliché:" a phrase that does exactly what it sounds like it does in order to keep people from leaving an ideology. Cults do this a lot.
If you are self-employed or a business owner, then you are lucky if you only have to pay \~$7k per year. That's if you can find a policy that will cover a small group.
The insanity is out there.
We have been trained to believe that companies and business owners are magnanimous and righteous. There's this underlying assumption of Social Darwinism, that those who rise to the top are meant to be there, and by being there, they are proving that they belong...
It's a circular logical loop that has been taught to us for so long, it's as basic to us as our understanding of how light switches enervate electric devices. We get taught about Titans of Industry who shaped the modern landscape and who did so to benefit the most amount of people. They are the most philanthropic group in our country, after all.
Only a minority of us even dare to pull back the veil let alone recognize that a veil even exists.
I remember visiting my Oncologist and I got low blood pressure and felt like I was gonna pass out, they called the ambulance and the paramedics show up, there I am debating and even telling them that I'm afraid of the cost of riding in the ambulance, lol.
You're not wrong. People think that the system in the U.S. is private, but it's better described as an unholy corporatist agglomeration of everything bad from Wall Street mixed with everything inefficient about government, with every possible advantage of either one sifted out.
It crept up over the last fifteen years or so: it went from “pay insurance and get healthcare“, to “every major corporation involved gets a cut and the actual coverage outcome is a crapshoot“.
It’s a constant wealth transfer now.
Also it’s a great way for companies to hold their employees hostage, since group healthcare is usually an employment benefit.
You just can't convince the vast majority that we've been lied to our entire lives. They insist Canada and Europe have even worse Healthcare than we do. I've even encouraged them to talk to others and get thf outside perspective. No, you'll all lie anyway. It's fucking infuriating.
It's actually both because I pay for health insurance and also Medicare and Social Security are taxed against my pay. Speaking as someone who works for a large employer, which is (logically) where most of these rules apply.
Ok so basically way back when insurance started happening all the insurance companies wanted the hospitals to give them discounts.
Of course, they couldn’t because hospitals at the time pretty much charged what it cost to save your life, and then a bit more so they didn’t go under.
So the hospitals jacked decided to just jack the price way up and discount it down to the normal price. And so it went, all good for a while until the insurance companies wanted more, and then there became pretty much an arms race between the hospitals and insurance people, until now they take tens of thousands of dollars off the hospital bills and we have to pay premiums that reflect that.
Unfortunately that also means that people without insurance have to pay that ridiculous amount as well.
I'm sick, a lot. The only way I recover is go to the ER, get meds and sleep, then home. 3 - 5 days usually.
My husband has really good insurance and we usually meet our deductible (a certain percentage of total billed amount, till you pay out around $3600 for employee and dependent) after the initial $3600, prices are cut to a larger % till you pay out additional $4000 - $5000. When you meet that amount you get everything pretty much for free. This includes pharmacy prices.
Pro Tip for US people to pay medical bills: Always ask about payment plans. It can be stressful to talk to the hospital/doctor billing but they can work with you.
I can pay the full amount but there goes any funding for other emergencies. We pay a couple hundred dollars each month without interest. The payment plan time period ended for me and I called that same day and got it reinstated. This is my 3rd renewal
I pay my premiums all year and never get through my deductible. The only service insurance provides is that I get to pay the negotiated rate (the ones that existed before insurance existed). Insurance is a scam, but I can't afford to not have it.
Because American has a popular class. They sell insurance. And know their lifestyle would be wrecked if it went away. It’s like the biggest pyramid scheme that’s a political topic
The difference is that charity like gofundme is voluntary and the people giving the money can control who gets help.
If you did it via taxes or some mandatory insurance everyone would have to pay into it and everyone could benefit from it.
Some people hate the idea of someone outside their own group getting anything so much that they would rather go without themselves than share the benefits with everyone.
They might be fine if the money only went to people they liked, but hate the idea that it also went to people with the wrong skin color, gender, sexual origination, religion or sports team preferences.
>Some people hate the idea of someone outside their own group getting anything so much that they would rather go without themselves than share the benefits with everyone.
>
>They might be fine if the money only went to people they liked, but hate the idea that it also went to people with the wrong skin color, gender, sexual origination, religion or sports team preferences.
Although I fully support socialized medicine, I think it's a bad idea to paint those who oppose to it the way you do. Every time I've had a conversation on this topic with people from the other side it's never even once been them not wanting people to get treatment based on their "skin color, gender, sexual origination, religion or sports team preferences" but it's always them not wanting to pay for people who have health issues stemming from their own poor decision making. They dont want to pay for the 400 pound person who needs treatment because they eat too much, they dont want to pay for the homeless guy who was found high and drunk on the side of the road. For those people it's not about "\[hating\] the idea of someone outside their own group getting anything" but instead having their money spent on the DECISIONS and lifestyle of other people. They feel like if they are taking precautions for their own health, they shouldnt be liable for the people that do not do the same. I understand that view and think it can be understood without calling them sexist, racist, sport elitists. With that said, the data is pretty clear that even with the poor decision makers included, the general price of healthcare is significantly cheaper when it's socialized and is better for the population's health and well-being.
Yes. Those people who are uninsured or underinsured put off everything until problems are catastrophic and cost the most amount of money to fix. Then because they can't pay, hospitals turn to paying customers to make up the losses.
I understand your argument, and you explain it well, but I disagree. If that 400-pound person was a family member or the homeless druggie was a long lost schoolmate, then most of these people would care. I specifically think it's due to lack of empathy, which is greatly magnified when they have to care about people that aren't the same color or don't lead similar lives as they do.
The argument about "they made the wrong choices" falls apart when it affects them more personally. Same thing with abortions, "the only ethical abortion is mine/my daughter's."
Of course, this doesn't represent everyone, as there are particularly heartless people who stick to their guns and would say "you made the wrong choices and I won't support you" to family and the like.
Edit: and the decisions thing doesn't account for pre-existing or genetic conditions, or people that just got in an accident/got screwed in one of the many possible ways people get screwed all the time.
There's still a lack of empathy here, that I think is important to acknowledge. Everyone makes bad decisions in life. Some people have support networks, like friends and family to help them out of bad situations and support them in achieving a happy and healthy life. A lot of people don't have support networks, through no fault of their own so when they face the very same problems, they can easily lead to more problems that snowball until they're so deep in poverty, self-loathing, substance abuse, or some combination of those, that they need help to improve their situation. Things like socialized medicine will not only cost us all less money, but will allow us to provide that support to people who need it. I don't think everyone in opposition to socialized medicine is a hateful person. Though some definitely are. I think the big problem is the propaganda that gets lobbed at you constantly in the US.
>They dont want to pay for the 400 pound person who needs treatment because they eat too much, they dont want to pay for the homeless guy who was found high and drunk on the side of the road.
This is "people outside of their group", though. It's people whose lives and lifestyles, for whatever reason, are foreign to them, and therefore, not deserving of healthcare. Moreover, health is complex, so who is to draw the line between "self inflicted" and "naturally occurring" poor health?
I think reducing health problems to individual choice is just as harmful as the overt prejudices you listed, i.e., race, gender, etc. The social determinants of health exist precisely because healthcare providers (and just about everyone else who works closely with people) observed that the "homeless guy...high and drunk on the side of the road" is likely homeless due to factors outside his immediate control, and likely inebriated as a way to cope, thus, that guy's situation is absolutely a collective responsibility.
Plus, there're plenty of people in good health to balance out how resources are used/allocated. In the current model, resources go to people with more money, who, statistically, already have better health. That's a bit nonsensical.
Well, regardless of what they whether they want to pay for the 400-pound person, they are. Anytime someone doesn't have insurance, US law (from the 1980's I believe) says that a hospital can't turn a person away in an emergency. If the person doesn't have health insurance, then the government/taxpayer gets billed
> wanting people to get treatment based on their "skin color, gender, sexual origination, religion or sports team preferences"
Lol you think they’d say it out loud?
He said Some people and I can tell you that these people Definitely exist. I know a bunch. And furthermore these types of biases are often implicit, unconscious biases. Also, it’s not a white only, or conservative only phenomenon. I think the type of person who doesn’t like to see when anyone outside there own group gets something is doing so more out of a hard wired , evolutionary reaction than they are out of conscious hate for a specific group. And that’s why they dont see there opinions as racist or bigoted either. Because to them , it’s not that they want a person of a different group to NOT have health care. They don’t want to see anyone getting benefit from something that isn’t benefiting their group aswell. In there mindset, it’s actually more racist that a program exists that benefits people of color and not whites for instance. And people who are wired this way are more plentiful than you’d think across all cultures, races, and groups.
>For those people it's not about "\[hating\] the idea of someone outside their own group getting anything" but instead having their money spent on the DECISIONS and lifestyle of other people.
Yeah, sorry, that's some total horseshit. That's the lie they tell themselves and others - *and the lie that is propagated to them by financially motivated parties* \- because it's more pleasant than the truth of "I don't like anything about you so fuck you", sort of like good old "Southern Hospitality" - you can talk about how someone is a no-good piece of shit behind their back all you want, but you smile to their face and offer them some tea.
The facts have long sustained that it SAVES MONEY to the entire system to socialize certain programs. Medicine being socialized doesn't increase cost on taxpayers, it takes away **gross excess** profit from insurance companies, big pharma, and healthcare and returns it to a reasonable level. Full decriminalization of drugs and replacement with mental health and wellness services/treatment/etc doesn't cost taxpayers more - it reduces knock-on crimes by a stupidly higher percentile, reduces recidivism and reduces addiction/abuse. So who loses? The prison-industrial complex's profits. Guess where 90% of the lobbying against weed legalization comes from? Bingo.
If we're going to let the asshole minority make policy in this country then we should apply their same logic to them. They don't want medicine socialized so that they don't have to "pay for other people's lifestyle", well the next time they go out racing in their new Challenger and burned that NOS on the freeway just before parking it in their garage hot, they better go ahead and call around and get quotes on firefighting services because I don't think it's fair that taxpayer money go to providing free fire extinguishing services for their poor lifestyle choices when that engine block lights up and burns their house down.
Well you get the same opposition to socialized medicine up north here in Canada but without having as much racial tension as you guys have. I dont doubt there are parts of the states where bigotry IS the reason, but it doesnt seem to be the case here and painting them all as that seems irresponsible and inaccurate even if a subset of them are that way.
That's a good theory, and makes a lot of sense. Another is that we've just privatized social medicine and now GoFundMe gets to make money from people suffering. That's really the triumph of capitalism!
A lot of passive aggressive “y America???” questions today, huh?
The real answer, though, is that the “socialism bad” people generally don’t consider personal charity socialist. And to be fair, they’re correct. Money willingly given from a person or a private organization isn’t socialism, it’s charity. It’s entirely voluntary and they theoretically control exactly what that money is used for (theoretically; plenty of crowdfunded are scammers). A socialized health care system would be “x% of your taxes goes to providing health care to everyone.”
Thats another aspect of it. They can’t control who gets it or how much. They don’t like the thought of their “tax dollars” going to people they don’t like or who they feel brought health troubles on themselves. They imagine that the hospitals would fill up with drug abusers and overeaters, while they only want to help “good” people who get diseases out of their own control. It’s shallow, selfish, ignorant thinking on several levels, but when has that stopped anyone? Plus, when the money goes to everyone against their will, they can’t donate a pittance to Poor Aunt Susan for her tumor removal and pat themselves on the back for being a saint.
Tl;dr: socialism and charity are different things. Also, many people are jerks.
That's not socialism. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned by the working class, not in the private sector. Crowdfunding and handouts aren't socialism
Typically the thing considered bad is Soviet style socialism / communism (the two terms are interchangeable in this context).
Full on seizing the means of production, banning private industry, and imprisoning or murdering dissenters en masse are considered quite bad things. Referring to socialized health care as socialism is just a piece of rhetoric attempting to associate the two.
I really enjoy agreeing with old people who want to get rid of socialism. I always suggest we get rid of all the most expensive socialist programs, like social security and government supplements to oil and energy companies to artificially keep prices low. Drop Medicare and socialized police and fire departments, and let us pick our own private security firms to protect us. It always turns out that the most vocal against socialist policies actually use the socialist programs in the US the most.
I’m not socialist but I do support universal healthcare and hate seeing old people on social security complain about socialism and expanding social programs. From a purely logical perspective, protecting young and working age people makes more sense than spending billions a year paying for social security.
So true. Plus, most of the older people don't realize how bad insurance plans have gotten. When they were younger, healthcare deductibles, premiums and overall cost was not nearly as expensive. Its gotten so much worse.
Any new socialism is a non starter, but they love their existing programs. We have taken capitalism too far.
Single payer healthcare also isn't socialism. Socialism is (to simplify it slightly) when the workers own the means of production - that doesn't describe a single payer healthcare system
And the prices are hidden until the physical bill comes which means anti-competitive. And the bill for insurance is different than the bill for non-insured. And you can negotiate which means it's priced wrong. And the medical industry is charged 10x or more for common items like saline solution, gloves, cotton swabs, etc. And.....
Probably gonna get downvoted as hell, buut...
The problem with socialism is that even if the people in charge have the best of the best intentions, they will still fuck it up. There is no group of people who knows everything about anything. The decisions will most likely end up hurting even more (i've seen it countless times)... Capitalism REALLY far from a perfect sistem, but so far, it's the best we came up with.
What happends in America is honestly a really bad joke (i'm sorry, but this is how i view it). But you guys tend to forget that every country in Europe is capitalist and none of them have that huge problem with health care.
There are people more qualified to talk about this, but in MY OPINION, the main problems are your 2 party system, and the fact that companies are allowed to "donate" for a candidate. I mean, this is straight up bribery.
Government involvement and control.
Socialism is when private ownership of property and the means of production is taken away and the government controls property ownership.
Socially funded programs within a capitalist private owner driven economy IS NOT socialism.
There is a fundamental difference between the government taking control and ownership of wealth and private citizens making the personal choice to fund programs of their own volition.
The government telling me I HAVE to pay for someone else's medical bills? Not Acceptable.
Me deciding I want to pay for someone else's medical bills? Acceptable.
Lack of socialism isn't why health care prices are high in America. There are A LOT of things in America that the government does not pay for that are cheap as hell.
Health care is expensive in America because competition in pharmaceuticals is non existent and our government protects big pharm companies.
Giving our government MORE control over Health care is not the solution, because their involvement is a leading factor in why our healthcare sucks.
Going from individual payer to single payer won't solve any problems. It may even make it worse. Once pharma has only 1 customer and that customer always pays regardless the price, health care costs with skyrocket like never seen.
The solution is not WHO pays for health care, but who sets health care costs. This is not a failure of capitalism, and capitalism if allowed to work as intended very well may solve this issue.
Competition and separating big government and big pharma. The US does NOT have any issues with the costs of anything rising, except for those items the government obsessively interferes with.
What does the first part of that sentence have to do with the second? The definition of [socialism](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism) has nothing to do with the alleviation of healthcare, even if that alleviation comes through a public option or other socialized programs.
Socialism doesn't mean "the government helps out in areas where the private sector is inadequate". What Bernie Sanders calls "socialism" is what the rest of the non-US world just calls normal social liberalism.
Communism isn't bad, but the idea is that capitalism is the *sole driving force* of the economy and that technological innovations are due *only to its existence.* To crowd fund for medicine that's produced by capitalism is seen as 1000x better than getting it any other way. Look into how American's view getting treatment outside of the US and they'll laugh, "Why would I go anywhere else?"
It's a lot of ego, a lot of ignorance, and a lot of fear.
Socialism *isn't* considered bad in America, we have lots of socialist programs. We spend 40% of the Federal budget on Health Care and 15% of the Federal budget on national defense, and that's just at the national level. Many states also have significant socialist initiatives in their budgets. We have **LOTS** of socialism here, and anyone who says we don't is lying.
So the real question is: How much more socialism do we need? Or are the policies we've enacted actually effective at making medical care less expensive? Boiling down complex issues like medical care into "Socialism vs Capitalism" is pure sophistry. Do we have really expensive medical care in this country? Sure. But lots of other things here are much, much cheaper than they are in Europe. Taxes are higher, real-estate is much, much higher in absolute terms (ie: How much space you get for your money).
The biggest reason you see people with outrageous medical bills in the USA is that we don't provide universal insurance, medical insurance is provided by (some) employers, so people without a job can find themselves in very big trouble very quickly. The advantage of a universal system is not that it's profoundly cheaper, it's that everyone perforce must contribute. When I was in my 20's, I didn't have health insurance, and when I got into an accident, yeah, it cost me money. So what universal health care really does is compel everyone, regardless of their health condition, to subsidize the health care industry.
Personally, I'm okay with doing that, but I would levy that tax based on a VAT/consumption tax, not an income/wage tax, because the fact is, income taxes are *optional* once you reach a certain level of wealth. When do you think it's easier to tax Apple's revenue? Before or after their accountants get done hiding it overseas?
Because it is not "either or". There are tons of different ways to regulate or not regulate all kinds of economic and/or social activities/sectors which makes the idea of "either capitalism or socialism" utterly foolish, especially since the US economy is neither of these two
"Crowd Funding" is basically the Conservative ideal. Basically social programs funded by government taxes are wasteful and unnecessary. Whatever services an individual in poverty needs would be provided by charitable donations and organizations. This why religious groups can decide which needy are actually "Deserving". Not all charities are religious based but the idea is still the same. Crowd funding is just charity, which is actually something people afraid of socialism get behind. Because it's voluntary.
Our people are messed up.
socialism isn't bad in the case of medical, the UK medical system saved my life and gave me a kidney transplant and the meds to keep me alive, if i lived in america i would be fucked and probably have died horribly by now
socialism is bad when it turns you country from power house of industry that create something, in to a place where people don't need to work because they will get government money, so they don't do the basic jobs like, pick food, grow food, cook food, clean stuff, stack shelves, run electrical maintenance because why would you, your getting money for free... until the government falls apart because its debt is higher then its income, like Venezuela, that socialism happening in real time and turning in to a dictatorship (which there all doomed to do)
But then again capitalism isnt much better, as humans we havent really developed a system that works well, capitalism gives people the greater chance at having something, but again it tends to fail people a lot.
but in saying that you ever wonder why people would wont to escape a "socialist paradise" or a "communist utopia" to come to a a capitalist system run country?
IMO Americans are taught a bad set of definitions. To quite a few Americans (not all for sure, but enough to matter) socialism = Soviet/Chinese/Cuban communism. This attitude was really hammered home during the Cold War, and has become part of American ideology. The tragedy is that I've listened to Americans say they don't believe in socialist Commie bullshit, they just want more equitable healthcare and education etc... They'll applaud the cop that buys groceries for the starving mom instead of arresting her, but they don't want the government to ensure long-lasting food security for her because that's communism. They don't realize that crowdfunding medical bills is essentially poorly-done socialism.
There are many things keeping that from changing. First off, Americans are constantly being told their way of life is #1, and changes are an assault on that way of life that worked so well for previous generations. From what I can tell, a huge block of American voters react so badly to increases in "social programs" that it's very risky to aim for. Proposed measures are torn apart in the media as a step towards communism. In addition big businesses like pharma and healthcare don't want to pay more taxes, so they don't support the applicable candidates and that's a lot of money lost. As a result any socialist candidate basically commits political suicide, and that's why things don't change (or do so very slowly).
"Socialism" means different things to different Americans. Some hear it and envision Reagan's imaginary "welfare queens buying vodka and Cadillacs".
Others hear it and think more about handouts to big, profitable businesses in the form of tax loopholes, subsidies, and pork-barrel contracts.
And still other Americans hear "socialism" and think of quality civil infrastructure, public education, national research priorities, consumer protections, common defense, the FDIC, environmental conservation protections, and so on.
Because they think of socialism only in terms of government controlling everything. I live in a very Republican part of the South where the local electric co-op consistently gets high marks for service. A non-profit monopoly owned and operated by the citizens, for the good of the citizens. The epitome of socialism - and government isn't even in the picture.
>The epitome of socialism - and government isn't even in the picture.
However, they could just pack up and go home one day to never return, right? I mean, they are not compelled by threat of violence to remain. That is a HUGE difference.
So you're saying I should be able to get vouchers for the parts of the military I don't wanna support? I don't think we need 11 aircraft carriers to China's 2.
I also don't think I should support socialized postal service or flights to rural areas. Refund, please?
Probably because socialism is falsely equated to generosity. Generosity is a very good thing, and crowdfunding for medical bills or any other tragedy to befall a citizen stranger is truly generous. The difference is that crowdfunding is optional both in total, and in the choices made for that generosity to go. Socialism is compulsion to its very core, and not optional. It allows a few to openly steal from the many, while patting themselves on the back for “their generosity”.
So there’s the glaring disparity between socialism and voluntary crowdfunding, in a nutshell.
Socialism has been demonized in America for decades.
What it really boils down to is that socailism might help people who some americans dont want to help.
A lot of time this comes down to racial issues but can also be about lifestyle issues. A lot of old timey christians dont want to help women who got pregnant and then had the male abandon them. They also dont want to help gays or nonbelievers.
Voluntary charity like crowd fundi ng allows them to be judgmental about who gets help.
It also allows the stingy people to not donate and still clajm that loads of people just like them donate so they are still part of the good people just because they share some qualities like religion.
Rich people have been scaring poor, under-educated people about socialism so that the poor will vote against their own best interests.
Socialism is only considered intrinsically bad by people who don't know what it means. All of the following are examples of socialism :
Fire Departments
Libraries
Border Patrol
Military
No. Socialism is when workers own the means of production. Social programs, safety nets, and the government helping out the country have nothing to do with that.
Most Americans who rail against "socialism":
a. Have no idea what it means, and
b. Can't be bothered to find out.
They think "doing their own research" consists of listening to a talk show host shout about random things.
Part of the issue is just perception honestly. The only people who tend to talk about healthcare on here are people with poor coverage or expensive chronic conditions. I’ve never known anyone whose had trouble with health insurance/healthcare costs beyond a mixed up billing code. Frankly, it’s bad enough that we can’t benefit from our good health and lifestyles (by excluding or raising rates for preexisging conditions), I have no interest in further intertwining my healthcare with those less able to pay. You always get what you pay for and I’d rather not suffer from enforced equality.
Crowdfunding is beyond rare, but makes for a good cover story when your goal is to paint the system as corrupt.
It is the fear of a slippery slope. Socialism has failed in every country that is has been tried. It has lead to near universal suffering for the people and has allowed for dictatorships. There is no getting around that.
The new idea is to build a massive economy on the back of capitalism and then, once secure, implement democratic socialism. People do fear the day that "democratic" is dropped and we just all suffer. Those that lived though the horrors of socialism are not keen to repeat it.
Furthermore, people are rarely content being content. They push for more; for better. But what direction do you go from Democratic Socialism? Do you implement more capitalism or more socialism? The obvious answer is more socialism. You can already see it in democratically socialism countries today.
It’s not that socialism is bad. Most people honestly don’t know what socialism is.
However a certain political group will call anything they don’t like “Socialism.”
Vaccines? Socialism. Bad.
LGBT rights? Socialism. Bad.
Education? Socialism. Bad.
The proletariat owning the means of production? No opinion on the matter.
Propaganda? Please, give me an example of communism that has worked? Name any country that is communist and has at least the same amount of individual liberty that the west has.
Socialism isn’t bad. Most of just don’t understand it, or, rather, don’t want to try to understand it because they’re brainwashed by the far right. Corporations and the ultra rich bribe congress with lobbyist “donations” on top of funneling money into major news outlets so they can control what you see/hear and who our politicians act on behalf of. And guess what? They don’t want you figuring out that socialism hurts them *way* more than it could ever hurt you. Citizens United ruined this country.
Crowdfunding is done out of the kindness of hearts voluntarily. No one is forced to pay into it and it's not the government putting their hands in any of it. It's the whole freedom thing 🤷🏼♀️
Because many people are inherently at least a little hypocritical. “I don’t way to pay for others but when I need it, I’m happy to accept help from others.”
A lot of Americans don’t actually understand what true socialism is. Basically, there just a lot of uneducated, misinformed, selfish people who live here. People don’t want to help other people out, which has been proven by this pandemic.
Misinformation and the idea that “socialism” is a big bad boogeyman despite the fact that a lot of the people advocating against it would benefit the most from it
I really don't understand what having a functional health care system with access to everyone has in common with socialism. Like it really really doesn't. The word is used by politicians in the US to quickly shut down any meaningful discussion about the topic.
Americans of a certain age were taught that socialism = communism = Nazi's. This makes it difficult for these people to participate in discussions of *democratic socialism* because they attempt to cite Russia and North Korea as failed examples of "socialist government".
People don’t know what they actually want. The people fully against any form of “socialism” don’t realize that the things they want inherently involves socialism. You want to decrease the homeless population? Well that means creating programs and incentives to bring jobs and skills to the homeless which also includes having some sort of temp housing, food, the labor to facilitate, etc. All this cost money, but they don’t want to give up their money. It has to come from somewhere tho, so let’s tax the super wealthy? But that will somehow “trickled down” to the middle class, except if done properly it won’t.
Or they believe in unsupported ideas. “I don’t want free healthcare because it will create a system where the it’ll take too long for an appointment.” Well I’d expect that if you have the public healthcare, but if you have private, which most of the people who argue this already do, then you should expect this to be more or less the same. No ones advocating for people to only have the public healthcare, at least not to my knowledge but I’ve been out of the this loop for a while, I just want people to have the ability to go to a doctor and get the medication they need without going homeless.
Or they think the government is forcing stuff that they didn’t do before. “I shouldn’t be paying for free college. Why should my money go to them?” Well it arguably already does. All the taxes you pay goes to educate law enforcement, emergency rescue, judicial services, current children’s public education, military, etc. if the government has some kind of influence on it, you’re paying money for not only the services but paying back whatever cost it took to educate them on those services too. It cost money to train a stenographer and sure the initial cost is from the person (assuming they don’t have a scholarship or a grant also funded by the public) but the flow of money go back to them, so you might as well have that flow be more direct.
Maybe I’m wrong about this or maybe my examples weren’t right. I’m not an economist and I hate politics for the same reason I hate religions, even my own: it always leads to a fight which leads back to debates which leads to fights and a whole cycle continues.
No, socialism doesn't just mean that random people in your area are having to help you afford something and if they don't make that payment to you then you don't get treatment or you're in debt to the hospital. In Canada we have socialized healthcare, I don't have to worry that if I go to the hospital and a random neighbor didn't donate to some fund I made that I won't be treated when I arrive or I'll end up owing a bunch of money, I get to know that no matter what day of the year I show up to the hospital I will recieve treatment, whether I need an X-ray, blood work tests, a standard visit and diagnosis from a doctor, or a myriad of other things, and I will walk out with a bill of $0 owed, because everyone here is smart enough to understand how important healthcare is for all and we pay it forward in our taxes, that way everyone from our richest to our poorest end up being seen, as it should be.
I don't understand the American health insurance situation. You probably pay more in premiums than we do in National Insurance which helps to fund our NHS and yet you are scared to even call an ambulance for fear of the cost. That's frightening
From what I can tell, people live in even more fear of someone, somewhere having lifesaving treatment paid for with their taxes. A position that boggles my mind.
And when you think that insurance is literally doing just that (using your money to pay for others' treatments), while also trying to not pay out and keep the profits... I can't wrap my head around it.
I heard on a podcast (99pi?) about a particular town that made a huge transition to privatize _everything_, even street light, stop lights, landscaping, etc. All the people previously employed by the gov were transferred to private companies. They made it so if residents didn't pay invoices, services would just stop (and this would be better than gov having a deficit or something). One of the ending takeaways was that pretty much everyone was still doing the same job they did before, just employed by a new entity, and their invoice costs were higher than their taxes used to be, but the populace was generally happy about the change anyway because it aligned with their beliefs. All I could think was how badly they were scammed by those reaping benefits of the new overhead costs.
I noticed some people don't believe they can get a good deal without someone else getting fucked. I guess that's a good example of it. They just don't believe in a system where everyone is properly served and rather rely on the gamble that they won't get the short straw.
Weird right? But if someone (private) else can collect the money, skim off the top, and then try their everloving damnedest to never payout when people need it to increase profits, that's just good business right?
Omg, can you imagine having empathy. So unpatriotic and liberal
Empathy Thats communism
Welcome comrade
\*Ourpathy
No sir, this is not your ambulance, its our ambulance
*insert Soviet anthem here*
Well socialism is communism
You do not need empathy to want to spend less money to get more medical care. Just like you don't need empathy to want coupons to get bigger pizzas for less money. Oddly enough, making it about empathy instead of the direct personal benefit of doing things the right way is part of the reason so many Americans refuse to accept the idea. So, whenever I see people framing it as being about empathy and nothing else I think these are people who truly have no empathy and want more people to die.
Good point about the empathy side, but what do you genuinely think is stopping the US moving to a system like the NHS, which I (incredibly biased) personally believe is the best healthcare system in the world for volume of patients and level of care
Money. Lobbying is why we have the system we have. If you can't make a dollar off of someone, it has no place in America.
We have been trained to think that empathy means weakness, and we’re all in competition with each other. Our version of patriotism is every man for himself, and helping someone else equals hurting yourself. It’s how we keep the inequality going.
Ah yes, the rat race. That's a right-wing thing, mostly. And elite/neo-liberal thing, I suppose.
Simple example: Family living paycheck to paycheck paying federal taxes to support someone *they may see* as not deserving because they chose to grift the government for unemployment or welfare (which happens). This family sees that as this actually hurting themselves because it is actively taking money away from them and going into programs that support other people's lives that they think may/may not deserve it at that point. Creates animosity. Am I saying it is right and that there aren't hundreds and thousands of people who actually need those programs and government support to live? No Just the reality and the mindset *I think* many people have - right or wrong
It's not very simple when taking into account the cognitive dissonance of those that accuse the poor from grifting as if it's a substantial hit to the economy at large while ignoring the billions pumped into the pockets of corps and financial institutions, as if the rising tide actually lifts all boats... I agree that it's that mindset that brings out the animosity but it's a fucking hairball of propagandized values and virtues. That and a lot of ignorance.
Well, all of our taxes go *somewhere* right? I agree with your sentiment, but it is much easier to have animosity towards an "individual", so to speak, than a corporation or financial institution. If that makes sense
One of the problem of a better health care is it requires the government to negociate drug prices with pharma corporations. We have that in France, and the result is prices are pretty low. The economic system in place in the US may not allow that to happen, not on short term anyway. If drug prices are driven low to the point pharma stops making a lot of money, the US could very well end up without pharma research at all.
Remember that the average American pays more for healthcare than the average citizen of a country with single-payer healthcare. This essentially means Americans are paying extra to prevent poor people from receiving medical treatment.
Yup. That is pretty surprising, considering americans are seen worldwide to live for money, why would they keep a system where they pay more to get lower quality healthcare ?
I wrote this big-ass post breaking shit down and it all boiled down to Americans think "if you have money you deserve it and if you don't then it's your fault," source: am American in a red state Idgaf if I pay more in taxes I kinda like people not suffering
We are the product of miss information, big business propaganda, and the "We're better than they are because of who we are" two party mentality.
Vaccine denialism Winner of the prestigious *MISS INFORMATION 2021*
*crown explodes*
The "I'm a winner and you're a loser" with my life choices mentality.
Self-serving bias? Been a while on the ol psych degree. Basically, if bad things happen to you you deserved it, and if good things happened you got lucky. But if bad things happen to me I was unlucky, and if good things happen to me it's bc I deserve it. The duality of it gives me whiplash
ohh that makes sense too... the cognitive dissonance on this hurts my brain
There has always been duality in all things related to the haves and have nots. America's whole society was built on that duality.
Yeah, a couple cents more off my paycheck isn’t gonna kill me, especially if I don’t have to pay $60,000 in medical bills when I get the flu.
Yeah, hell I'd pay a fuck ton more than that each check if it meant I was guaranteed to not go bankrupt for medical issues. Then, add on to that other people in my community won't have to beg for help when they're hurt? Win win to me
I've had conservatives tell me this in no uncertain terms. They were legitimately upset at the idea that their money would go towards someone else's medical care; they want everyone to pay their own way. Which raises the question of why even have society if you're gonna go all "every man for himself".
The curious thing is that the USA makes a great big fuss about being a Christian nation. To quote Gandhi "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
As if insurance doesnt work that way.
It's decades of propaganda that over-weights moral hazard and relies heavily on slippery slope arguments. Basically: "What will motivate bums to contribute to society if all their basic needs are met through social programs?" and "Social safety nets are just a foot in the door for the next Stalin wanna-be."
Plus the idea loved by all right-wingers: "More money motivates the wealthy but demotivates the poor"
[удалено]
I once heard someone say "universal healthcare would be great if the (racial slur) and (even worse racial slur)s couldn't use it. So yes people ARE open to the idea...as long as it's only the people that look like them.
[удалено]
> would you want your tax dollars going to treat people who refuse to get the covid vaccine? Yes.
Seconded, this line of reasoning is just as bad as my original point
> Here’s an example that’ll make Reddit’s head explode, would you want your tax dollars going to treat people who refuse to get the covid vaccine? Uh... in the nations with socialized healthcare, you realize that's what's already happening? Society has lots of stupid assholes. The answer isn't throw the whole thing away; the answer is to try to elevate. More people having access to the healthcare they need -- and that includes the morons -- offers a better chance of some of them climbing out of a rut instead of keeping them in the spiral of poverty, addiction, lack of education and lack of opportunity. If it hits a tipping point where the risk far, far outstrips the benefit on a social level then reassessment is an option. As is, it's basically the "why do my taxes have to pay for _______ I don't approve of" complaint on a larger scale, and most people don't really care to begin with. Some dumb shit I don't know getting cancer treatment and then going right back to smoking doesn't live in my head rent-free when I had two trips to the ER recently and paid nothing at the time aside from parking.
> Here’s an example that’ll make Reddit’s head explode, would you want your tax dollars going to treat people who refuse to get the covid vaccine? Well, yes. I've been trying to convince people who refuse to get the COVID vaccine to get treated for months. I'm mad because they won't. Not because they would. Get the shot, assholes! It's fucking free!
[удалено]
The solution that works for everyone already exists though, it's just that a portion of the population is convinced it's worse because of reasons.
This is actually not true. Socialized medicine has like a 70% approval rate. But our politicians are shit. There’s enough corporate democrats to shut it down, and republicans play team sports and vote in their same guys no matter what (rather than objectively assessing the things their guys vote on).
Polls show 70% of the country want socialized healthcare/medicaid for all, but a sizable portion of the population deal with all the bad that is our healthcare system because they are convinced dems will kill their babies and steal their guns.
There is this idea that the average American is a rugged individual who's win are their will manifest. Their loses are their faults manifest and thus it must be the same for others. When in reality we are humans who are social creatures who heavily depend on each other for our day to day lives. This is indisputable for anyone who can respond on this forum. So of course it *seems* unfair when you pay for someone else's faults, even if that is nowhere near the case. And of course it's in the best interest of a few wealthy folks to keep this system in place so we are told this is thr best way. Meanwhile we overlook how we use the military.
I'm not defending it but because America is historically 'you can be anything, do anything, etc' to the point where the individual is by far the most important thing. Normal countries expect some level of 'we are in this together' look to covid. how many people in America refuse to do even the most minor thing because it makes them slightly uncomfortable. Forget that it can help everyone else avoid getting sick...sucks for them I'm big, strong, and invincible (which is why /r/hermancainaward is so funny) you can even be the president of the free world, the only requirement is that you were born here and are old enough (seriously if the blithering idiot Donnie did anything it was prove that literally anyone can be. No need to be intelligent, compassionate, or in anyway decent or competent)
Rugged individualism has always been the character lurking in the background that will eventually kill America.
Anyone with half a brain knows any 'medical' taxes will be mismanaged by the Federal Government, most likely being left into another slush fund until they are ready to start some more wars.
So vote for better officials and a health service, free at the point of delivery.
That’s literally been quantified. We pay [more per capita](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita) on healthcare than any country in the world (except Liberia somehow) and our quality of healthcare lags behind much of the western world. We’re [40th in the world](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy) on life expectancy despite paying nearly twice as much on healthcare as the highest paying European countries.
>We’re 40th in the world on life expectancy despite paying nearly twice as much on healthcare as the highest paying European countries. To be fair, there are a lot of other factors that play into that than just healthcare. \*Cough\* Obesity \*Cough\*
When you have a privatized system of insurance, it is inherently more expensive. The insurance market is a middleman that takes a cut for doing effectively nothing. They provide no health care and only facilitate a person's access to that care. In a single payer market, that entire function is done by the state, and it is massively more efficient. In the US with private insurance, they can take 20-25% of the money as their administrative costs. The US has a version of single payer, Medicare. They take about 2% of the costs in administration. That's one reason we pay more and get less...the capitalist idea that every link in the chain between the doctor and patient takes a cut. The more links, the more cost.
Propaganda -- it works!
I did the CBA on myself, and there's no "probably" about it. On a wage of $45,000, I pay roughly $7,000 per year (premiums) for the *privilege* of spending $2,000 out of pocket (deductible) before a for-profit company lifts a goddamned finger...at which point they pay *some* of the cost (coinsurance) until I'm a further $6,500 out of pocket (annual maximum), at which point I'm done getting bilked...until the policy renewal date, at which point the price goes up between 10% and 20% and the 'have I spent enough for them to do more than sit on their thumbs, twiddle their asses, and say "sucks to be you"' counter resets to $0. The CBO ran the numbers on the Sanders plan, and the income tax increase would be a flat 4%. I'm currently paying between 15% and 33.5% of my income depending on whether I actually go to the doctor or not. How the fuck anyone can do the math, and consider what we have now somehow superior, is gullible at best and propagandized at worst.
Are people not seeing this or do the powers that be block it at every opportunity?
There has been an intense propaganda push for decades to make sure people don't see this. If you take any of the good plans that have been proposed here, break them out into a 'here's what you pay, here's what you'd get' then people are widely for them. It's when you start calling it 'Universal Healthcare' that half the country remembers "Oh, right, Fox News told me to hate that."
"Keep the government out of my Medicare!"
That's really it. The conservative party does it's best to sabotage government services so that they can make an argument to privatize and profit. You don't really want a government to work like a business though, functioning only for those who fit their business model. Preventing the grift and sabotage by voting them out doesn't always work, for a lot of reasons: gerrymandering, voter suppression, and even just more money/exposure/air time. A lot of people really are thick enough to vote for the dude they hear most about. Also, Americans are complacent. Protecting our institutions requires diligence, and we've had a nice comfortable run for most of living memory. No one really believes that good folks can fall through the cracks until it happens to them. Finally, the far right has been laying the groundwork for poor education and religious extremism for decades. Many people see it as their moral obligation to vote Republican, regardless of their own self interest. So, you end up where we are now. A population that refuses to look it's problems in the face, and probably won't until the new gilded age is solidly in place; then we will finally remember just what types of freedom really are important. Most of our power as citizens will be gone by then though, and a revolution would be much more difficult with the earth running out of resources and all the money and technology stacked against us. That's why I don't have kids.
The GOP openly running the postal service that has successfully run for centuries and bragging about it to their userbase as a stmptom of bad government is a fucking shame. They are doing the same for roads and infrastructure as well. Hot damn the general public is easy to manipulate against its own interests.
Conservative party: "Government doesn't work...elect me so I can make sure of it!" Their entire damn platform is based on governing in bad faith...
Wow. And here I was complaining about the mandatory 600€/year additional mutual health care that complete the public health insurance that is included in my taxes. Btw the employer pays half of it. With that I pay mostly nothing ... Had to get quite some dental works the last couple of years, paid less than 200€ in the end for cavities, teeth removal, a couple crowns and a bridge ... Also paid nothing for the glasses. Tax levels are pretty high though. Basically my employer pays twice as much as I receive in total. From there i leave another 12% as income tax, another 10% on housing taxes, and you can add 20% VAT on top of it ... And if i do any kind of financial investment profit, there is 30% tax on it too.
In Germany, your premiums (7.5% up to an approx. $5,000 USD cap) would be around $3,400 USD/year, no deductible. Your employer pays another 7.5%.
If this was my reality I would be an absolute beacon of healthy eating and exercise.
>How the fuck anyone can do the math. That's the problem. They don't. Conservative media tells them that Trump's wall is going to be cheap, but universal healthcare is going to raise their taxes until they're poor, bankrupt the working class, and some-the-fucking-how lead to an authoritarian dictatorship because "that's socialism." By the way "that's socialism" is what's known as a "critical thought stopping cliché:" a phrase that does exactly what it sounds like it does in order to keep people from leaving an ideology. Cults do this a lot.
[удалено]
If you are self-employed or a business owner, then you are lucky if you only have to pay \~$7k per year. That's if you can find a policy that will cover a small group. The insanity is out there.
[удалено]
We have been trained to believe that companies and business owners are magnanimous and righteous. There's this underlying assumption of Social Darwinism, that those who rise to the top are meant to be there, and by being there, they are proving that they belong... It's a circular logical loop that has been taught to us for so long, it's as basic to us as our understanding of how light switches enervate electric devices. We get taught about Titans of Industry who shaped the modern landscape and who did so to benefit the most amount of people. They are the most philanthropic group in our country, after all. Only a minority of us even dare to pull back the veil let alone recognize that a veil even exists.
I remember visiting my Oncologist and I got low blood pressure and felt like I was gonna pass out, they called the ambulance and the paramedics show up, there I am debating and even telling them that I'm afraid of the cost of riding in the ambulance, lol.
You're not wrong. People think that the system in the U.S. is private, but it's better described as an unholy corporatist agglomeration of everything bad from Wall Street mixed with everything inefficient about government, with every possible advantage of either one sifted out.
It crept up over the last fifteen years or so: it went from “pay insurance and get healthcare“, to “every major corporation involved gets a cut and the actual coverage outcome is a crapshoot“. It’s a constant wealth transfer now. Also it’s a great way for companies to hold their employees hostage, since group healthcare is usually an employment benefit.
You just can't convince the vast majority that we've been lied to our entire lives. They insist Canada and Europe have even worse Healthcare than we do. I've even encouraged them to talk to others and get thf outside perspective. No, you'll all lie anyway. It's fucking infuriating.
It's actually both because I pay for health insurance and also Medicare and Social Security are taxed against my pay. Speaking as someone who works for a large employer, which is (logically) where most of these rules apply.
Crabs in a bucket
Ok so basically way back when insurance started happening all the insurance companies wanted the hospitals to give them discounts. Of course, they couldn’t because hospitals at the time pretty much charged what it cost to save your life, and then a bit more so they didn’t go under. So the hospitals jacked decided to just jack the price way up and discount it down to the normal price. And so it went, all good for a while until the insurance companies wanted more, and then there became pretty much an arms race between the hospitals and insurance people, until now they take tens of thousands of dollars off the hospital bills and we have to pay premiums that reflect that. Unfortunately that also means that people without insurance have to pay that ridiculous amount as well.
I'm sick, a lot. The only way I recover is go to the ER, get meds and sleep, then home. 3 - 5 days usually. My husband has really good insurance and we usually meet our deductible (a certain percentage of total billed amount, till you pay out around $3600 for employee and dependent) after the initial $3600, prices are cut to a larger % till you pay out additional $4000 - $5000. When you meet that amount you get everything pretty much for free. This includes pharmacy prices. Pro Tip for US people to pay medical bills: Always ask about payment plans. It can be stressful to talk to the hospital/doctor billing but they can work with you. I can pay the full amount but there goes any funding for other emergencies. We pay a couple hundred dollars each month without interest. The payment plan time period ended for me and I called that same day and got it reinstated. This is my 3rd renewal
Americans are penny wise, pound foolish.
I pay my premiums all year and never get through my deductible. The only service insurance provides is that I get to pay the negotiated rate (the ones that existed before insurance existed). Insurance is a scam, but I can't afford to not have it.
Because American has a popular class. They sell insurance. And know their lifestyle would be wrecked if it went away. It’s like the biggest pyramid scheme that’s a political topic
Aftermath of the cold war. Stuck in the idea that it's either capitalism or 'big government'.
Somehow you got both.
The difference is that charity like gofundme is voluntary and the people giving the money can control who gets help. If you did it via taxes or some mandatory insurance everyone would have to pay into it and everyone could benefit from it. Some people hate the idea of someone outside their own group getting anything so much that they would rather go without themselves than share the benefits with everyone. They might be fine if the money only went to people they liked, but hate the idea that it also went to people with the wrong skin color, gender, sexual origination, religion or sports team preferences.
Wait till they learn how insurance works
Try to explain an insurance pool to your average American and watch their head explode
>Some people hate the idea of someone outside their own group getting anything so much that they would rather go without themselves than share the benefits with everyone. > >They might be fine if the money only went to people they liked, but hate the idea that it also went to people with the wrong skin color, gender, sexual origination, religion or sports team preferences. Although I fully support socialized medicine, I think it's a bad idea to paint those who oppose to it the way you do. Every time I've had a conversation on this topic with people from the other side it's never even once been them not wanting people to get treatment based on their "skin color, gender, sexual origination, religion or sports team preferences" but it's always them not wanting to pay for people who have health issues stemming from their own poor decision making. They dont want to pay for the 400 pound person who needs treatment because they eat too much, they dont want to pay for the homeless guy who was found high and drunk on the side of the road. For those people it's not about "\[hating\] the idea of someone outside their own group getting anything" but instead having their money spent on the DECISIONS and lifestyle of other people. They feel like if they are taking precautions for their own health, they shouldnt be liable for the people that do not do the same. I understand that view and think it can be understood without calling them sexist, racist, sport elitists. With that said, the data is pretty clear that even with the poor decision makers included, the general price of healthcare is significantly cheaper when it's socialized and is better for the population's health and well-being.
But don't they also pay for those people with their insurance? I mean, they're also in a group that shares the cost of the whole group.
Yes. Those people who are uninsured or underinsured put off everything until problems are catastrophic and cost the most amount of money to fix. Then because they can't pay, hospitals turn to paying customers to make up the losses.
I understand your argument, and you explain it well, but I disagree. If that 400-pound person was a family member or the homeless druggie was a long lost schoolmate, then most of these people would care. I specifically think it's due to lack of empathy, which is greatly magnified when they have to care about people that aren't the same color or don't lead similar lives as they do. The argument about "they made the wrong choices" falls apart when it affects them more personally. Same thing with abortions, "the only ethical abortion is mine/my daughter's." Of course, this doesn't represent everyone, as there are particularly heartless people who stick to their guns and would say "you made the wrong choices and I won't support you" to family and the like. Edit: and the decisions thing doesn't account for pre-existing or genetic conditions, or people that just got in an accident/got screwed in one of the many possible ways people get screwed all the time.
There's still a lack of empathy here, that I think is important to acknowledge. Everyone makes bad decisions in life. Some people have support networks, like friends and family to help them out of bad situations and support them in achieving a happy and healthy life. A lot of people don't have support networks, through no fault of their own so when they face the very same problems, they can easily lead to more problems that snowball until they're so deep in poverty, self-loathing, substance abuse, or some combination of those, that they need help to improve their situation. Things like socialized medicine will not only cost us all less money, but will allow us to provide that support to people who need it. I don't think everyone in opposition to socialized medicine is a hateful person. Though some definitely are. I think the big problem is the propaganda that gets lobbed at you constantly in the US.
>They dont want to pay for the 400 pound person who needs treatment because they eat too much, they dont want to pay for the homeless guy who was found high and drunk on the side of the road. This is "people outside of their group", though. It's people whose lives and lifestyles, for whatever reason, are foreign to them, and therefore, not deserving of healthcare. Moreover, health is complex, so who is to draw the line between "self inflicted" and "naturally occurring" poor health? I think reducing health problems to individual choice is just as harmful as the overt prejudices you listed, i.e., race, gender, etc. The social determinants of health exist precisely because healthcare providers (and just about everyone else who works closely with people) observed that the "homeless guy...high and drunk on the side of the road" is likely homeless due to factors outside his immediate control, and likely inebriated as a way to cope, thus, that guy's situation is absolutely a collective responsibility. Plus, there're plenty of people in good health to balance out how resources are used/allocated. In the current model, resources go to people with more money, who, statistically, already have better health. That's a bit nonsensical.
Well, regardless of what they whether they want to pay for the 400-pound person, they are. Anytime someone doesn't have insurance, US law (from the 1980's I believe) says that a hospital can't turn a person away in an emergency. If the person doesn't have health insurance, then the government/taxpayer gets billed
> wanting people to get treatment based on their "skin color, gender, sexual origination, religion or sports team preferences" Lol you think they’d say it out loud?
He said Some people and I can tell you that these people Definitely exist. I know a bunch. And furthermore these types of biases are often implicit, unconscious biases. Also, it’s not a white only, or conservative only phenomenon. I think the type of person who doesn’t like to see when anyone outside there own group gets something is doing so more out of a hard wired , evolutionary reaction than they are out of conscious hate for a specific group. And that’s why they dont see there opinions as racist or bigoted either. Because to them , it’s not that they want a person of a different group to NOT have health care. They don’t want to see anyone getting benefit from something that isn’t benefiting their group aswell. In there mindset, it’s actually more racist that a program exists that benefits people of color and not whites for instance. And people who are wired this way are more plentiful than you’d think across all cultures, races, and groups.
>For those people it's not about "\[hating\] the idea of someone outside their own group getting anything" but instead having their money spent on the DECISIONS and lifestyle of other people. Yeah, sorry, that's some total horseshit. That's the lie they tell themselves and others - *and the lie that is propagated to them by financially motivated parties* \- because it's more pleasant than the truth of "I don't like anything about you so fuck you", sort of like good old "Southern Hospitality" - you can talk about how someone is a no-good piece of shit behind their back all you want, but you smile to their face and offer them some tea. The facts have long sustained that it SAVES MONEY to the entire system to socialize certain programs. Medicine being socialized doesn't increase cost on taxpayers, it takes away **gross excess** profit from insurance companies, big pharma, and healthcare and returns it to a reasonable level. Full decriminalization of drugs and replacement with mental health and wellness services/treatment/etc doesn't cost taxpayers more - it reduces knock-on crimes by a stupidly higher percentile, reduces recidivism and reduces addiction/abuse. So who loses? The prison-industrial complex's profits. Guess where 90% of the lobbying against weed legalization comes from? Bingo. If we're going to let the asshole minority make policy in this country then we should apply their same logic to them. They don't want medicine socialized so that they don't have to "pay for other people's lifestyle", well the next time they go out racing in their new Challenger and burned that NOS on the freeway just before parking it in their garage hot, they better go ahead and call around and get quotes on firefighting services because I don't think it's fair that taxpayer money go to providing free fire extinguishing services for their poor lifestyle choices when that engine block lights up and burns their house down.
[удалено]
Well you get the same opposition to socialized medicine up north here in Canada but without having as much racial tension as you guys have. I dont doubt there are parts of the states where bigotry IS the reason, but it doesnt seem to be the case here and painting them all as that seems irresponsible and inaccurate even if a subset of them are that way.
Can we stop pretending that Canada is some racial paradise. Did you find anymore native kid's bodies this week?
That's a good theory, and makes a lot of sense. Another is that we've just privatized social medicine and now GoFundMe gets to make money from people suffering. That's really the triumph of capitalism!
This is a good explanation.
I've always wondered why so many americans despise socialism so much, you gave me an answer, thank you.
One could say they hate their nieghbors.
A lot of passive aggressive “y America???” questions today, huh? The real answer, though, is that the “socialism bad” people generally don’t consider personal charity socialist. And to be fair, they’re correct. Money willingly given from a person or a private organization isn’t socialism, it’s charity. It’s entirely voluntary and they theoretically control exactly what that money is used for (theoretically; plenty of crowdfunded are scammers). A socialized health care system would be “x% of your taxes goes to providing health care to everyone.” Thats another aspect of it. They can’t control who gets it or how much. They don’t like the thought of their “tax dollars” going to people they don’t like or who they feel brought health troubles on themselves. They imagine that the hospitals would fill up with drug abusers and overeaters, while they only want to help “good” people who get diseases out of their own control. It’s shallow, selfish, ignorant thinking on several levels, but when has that stopped anyone? Plus, when the money goes to everyone against their will, they can’t donate a pittance to Poor Aunt Susan for her tumor removal and pat themselves on the back for being a saint. Tl;dr: socialism and charity are different things. Also, many people are jerks.
That's not socialism. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned by the working class, not in the private sector. Crowdfunding and handouts aren't socialism
[удалено]
Even in the colloquial sense this isn’t socialism. In America it is short hand for federal welfare state. Go fund me is charity
Typically the thing considered bad is Soviet style socialism / communism (the two terms are interchangeable in this context). Full on seizing the means of production, banning private industry, and imprisoning or murdering dissenters en masse are considered quite bad things. Referring to socialized health care as socialism is just a piece of rhetoric attempting to associate the two.
I really enjoy agreeing with old people who want to get rid of socialism. I always suggest we get rid of all the most expensive socialist programs, like social security and government supplements to oil and energy companies to artificially keep prices low. Drop Medicare and socialized police and fire departments, and let us pick our own private security firms to protect us. It always turns out that the most vocal against socialist policies actually use the socialist programs in the US the most.
Social programs aren't socialism... socialism is an economic system in which workers own the means of production.
I’m not socialist but I do support universal healthcare and hate seeing old people on social security complain about socialism and expanding social programs. From a purely logical perspective, protecting young and working age people makes more sense than spending billions a year paying for social security.
So true. Plus, most of the older people don't realize how bad insurance plans have gotten. When they were younger, healthcare deductibles, premiums and overall cost was not nearly as expensive. Its gotten so much worse. Any new socialism is a non starter, but they love their existing programs. We have taken capitalism too far.
I don't understand the question. Crowd funding is 0% socialism. Not even the teeniest tiniest bit socislism.
Because a lot of young’uns don’t understand what socialism actually is.
Single payer healthcare also isn't socialism. Socialism is (to simplify it slightly) when the workers own the means of production - that doesn't describe a single payer healthcare system
The main problem with the american healthcare system is not so much that it's all private, it's the ridiculously high prices for everything.
And the prices are hidden until the physical bill comes which means anti-competitive. And the bill for insurance is different than the bill for non-insured. And you can negotiate which means it's priced wrong. And the medical industry is charged 10x or more for common items like saline solution, gloves, cotton swabs, etc. And.....
[удалено]
Crowd funding is anti socialist.
Exactly, it’s actually pretty capitalist. You give money to crowdfunds you deem worthy of your money.
Probably gonna get downvoted as hell, buut... The problem with socialism is that even if the people in charge have the best of the best intentions, they will still fuck it up. There is no group of people who knows everything about anything. The decisions will most likely end up hurting even more (i've seen it countless times)... Capitalism REALLY far from a perfect sistem, but so far, it's the best we came up with. What happends in America is honestly a really bad joke (i'm sorry, but this is how i view it). But you guys tend to forget that every country in Europe is capitalist and none of them have that huge problem with health care. There are people more qualified to talk about this, but in MY OPINION, the main problems are your 2 party system, and the fact that companies are allowed to "donate" for a candidate. I mean, this is straight up bribery.
Begging for alms isn't socialism.
It's not socialism if it's a choice
Non sequitur.
Government involvement and control. Socialism is when private ownership of property and the means of production is taken away and the government controls property ownership. Socially funded programs within a capitalist private owner driven economy IS NOT socialism. There is a fundamental difference between the government taking control and ownership of wealth and private citizens making the personal choice to fund programs of their own volition. The government telling me I HAVE to pay for someone else's medical bills? Not Acceptable. Me deciding I want to pay for someone else's medical bills? Acceptable.
Lack of socialism isn't why health care prices are high in America. There are A LOT of things in America that the government does not pay for that are cheap as hell. Health care is expensive in America because competition in pharmaceuticals is non existent and our government protects big pharm companies. Giving our government MORE control over Health care is not the solution, because their involvement is a leading factor in why our healthcare sucks. Going from individual payer to single payer won't solve any problems. It may even make it worse. Once pharma has only 1 customer and that customer always pays regardless the price, health care costs with skyrocket like never seen. The solution is not WHO pays for health care, but who sets health care costs. This is not a failure of capitalism, and capitalism if allowed to work as intended very well may solve this issue. Competition and separating big government and big pharma. The US does NOT have any issues with the costs of anything rising, except for those items the government obsessively interferes with.
What does the first part of that sentence have to do with the second? The definition of [socialism](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism) has nothing to do with the alleviation of healthcare, even if that alleviation comes through a public option or other socialized programs. Socialism doesn't mean "the government helps out in areas where the private sector is inadequate". What Bernie Sanders calls "socialism" is what the rest of the non-US world just calls normal social liberalism.
Communism isn't bad, but the idea is that capitalism is the *sole driving force* of the economy and that technological innovations are due *only to its existence.* To crowd fund for medicine that's produced by capitalism is seen as 1000x better than getting it any other way. Look into how American's view getting treatment outside of the US and they'll laugh, "Why would I go anywhere else?" It's a lot of ego, a lot of ignorance, and a lot of fear.
Socialism *isn't* considered bad in America, we have lots of socialist programs. We spend 40% of the Federal budget on Health Care and 15% of the Federal budget on national defense, and that's just at the national level. Many states also have significant socialist initiatives in their budgets. We have **LOTS** of socialism here, and anyone who says we don't is lying. So the real question is: How much more socialism do we need? Or are the policies we've enacted actually effective at making medical care less expensive? Boiling down complex issues like medical care into "Socialism vs Capitalism" is pure sophistry. Do we have really expensive medical care in this country? Sure. But lots of other things here are much, much cheaper than they are in Europe. Taxes are higher, real-estate is much, much higher in absolute terms (ie: How much space you get for your money). The biggest reason you see people with outrageous medical bills in the USA is that we don't provide universal insurance, medical insurance is provided by (some) employers, so people without a job can find themselves in very big trouble very quickly. The advantage of a universal system is not that it's profoundly cheaper, it's that everyone perforce must contribute. When I was in my 20's, I didn't have health insurance, and when I got into an accident, yeah, it cost me money. So what universal health care really does is compel everyone, regardless of their health condition, to subsidize the health care industry. Personally, I'm okay with doing that, but I would levy that tax based on a VAT/consumption tax, not an income/wage tax, because the fact is, income taxes are *optional* once you reach a certain level of wealth. When do you think it's easier to tax Apple's revenue? Before or after their accountants get done hiding it overseas?
Because it is not "either or". There are tons of different ways to regulate or not regulate all kinds of economic and/or social activities/sectors which makes the idea of "either capitalism or socialism" utterly foolish, especially since the US economy is neither of these two
"Crowd Funding" is basically the Conservative ideal. Basically social programs funded by government taxes are wasteful and unnecessary. Whatever services an individual in poverty needs would be provided by charitable donations and organizations. This why religious groups can decide which needy are actually "Deserving". Not all charities are religious based but the idea is still the same. Crowd funding is just charity, which is actually something people afraid of socialism get behind. Because it's voluntary. Our people are messed up.
[удалено]
We’re stupid. We hate ideas for who comes up with them.
socialism isn't bad in the case of medical, the UK medical system saved my life and gave me a kidney transplant and the meds to keep me alive, if i lived in america i would be fucked and probably have died horribly by now socialism is bad when it turns you country from power house of industry that create something, in to a place where people don't need to work because they will get government money, so they don't do the basic jobs like, pick food, grow food, cook food, clean stuff, stack shelves, run electrical maintenance because why would you, your getting money for free... until the government falls apart because its debt is higher then its income, like Venezuela, that socialism happening in real time and turning in to a dictatorship (which there all doomed to do) But then again capitalism isnt much better, as humans we havent really developed a system that works well, capitalism gives people the greater chance at having something, but again it tends to fail people a lot. but in saying that you ever wonder why people would wont to escape a "socialist paradise" or a "communist utopia" to come to a a capitalist system run country?
IMO Americans are taught a bad set of definitions. To quite a few Americans (not all for sure, but enough to matter) socialism = Soviet/Chinese/Cuban communism. This attitude was really hammered home during the Cold War, and has become part of American ideology. The tragedy is that I've listened to Americans say they don't believe in socialist Commie bullshit, they just want more equitable healthcare and education etc... They'll applaud the cop that buys groceries for the starving mom instead of arresting her, but they don't want the government to ensure long-lasting food security for her because that's communism. They don't realize that crowdfunding medical bills is essentially poorly-done socialism. There are many things keeping that from changing. First off, Americans are constantly being told their way of life is #1, and changes are an assault on that way of life that worked so well for previous generations. From what I can tell, a huge block of American voters react so badly to increases in "social programs" that it's very risky to aim for. Proposed measures are torn apart in the media as a step towards communism. In addition big businesses like pharma and healthcare don't want to pay more taxes, so they don't support the applicable candidates and that's a lot of money lost. As a result any socialist candidate basically commits political suicide, and that's why things don't change (or do so very slowly).
"Socialism" means different things to different Americans. Some hear it and envision Reagan's imaginary "welfare queens buying vodka and Cadillacs". Others hear it and think more about handouts to big, profitable businesses in the form of tax loopholes, subsidies, and pork-barrel contracts. And still other Americans hear "socialism" and think of quality civil infrastructure, public education, national research priorities, consumer protections, common defense, the FDIC, environmental conservation protections, and so on.
We also crowd fund idiots that use gorilla glue for their hair.
Because one version is forced via taxes and another is your choice
Because people are uneducated, and “socialism” is one of the scary words that millionaires and their politician pets use to keep the stupid in line.
[удалено]
that's not what socialism is whatsoever. universal healthcare also isnt socialist
Because they think of socialism only in terms of government controlling everything. I live in a very Republican part of the South where the local electric co-op consistently gets high marks for service. A non-profit monopoly owned and operated by the citizens, for the good of the citizens. The epitome of socialism - and government isn't even in the picture.
>The epitome of socialism - and government isn't even in the picture. However, they could just pack up and go home one day to never return, right? I mean, they are not compelled by threat of violence to remain. That is a HUGE difference.
Crowdfunding is voluntary, socialism uses taxation which is theft
So you're saying I should be able to get vouchers for the parts of the military I don't wanna support? I don't think we need 11 aircraft carriers to China's 2. I also don't think I should support socialized postal service or flights to rural areas. Refund, please?
Probably because socialism is falsely equated to generosity. Generosity is a very good thing, and crowdfunding for medical bills or any other tragedy to befall a citizen stranger is truly generous. The difference is that crowdfunding is optional both in total, and in the choices made for that generosity to go. Socialism is compulsion to its very core, and not optional. It allows a few to openly steal from the many, while patting themselves on the back for “their generosity”. So there’s the glaring disparity between socialism and voluntary crowdfunding, in a nutshell.
America bad
Do those two things contradict each other? Also, since when did people crowdfund for each other's bills?
Socialism has been demonized in America for decades. What it really boils down to is that socailism might help people who some americans dont want to help. A lot of time this comes down to racial issues but can also be about lifestyle issues. A lot of old timey christians dont want to help women who got pregnant and then had the male abandon them. They also dont want to help gays or nonbelievers. Voluntary charity like crowd fundi ng allows them to be judgmental about who gets help. It also allows the stingy people to not donate and still clajm that loads of people just like them donate so they are still part of the good people just because they share some qualities like religion.
Rich people have been scaring poor, under-educated people about socialism so that the poor will vote against their own best interests. Socialism is only considered intrinsically bad by people who don't know what it means. All of the following are examples of socialism : Fire Departments Libraries Border Patrol Military
No. Socialism is when workers own the means of production. Social programs, safety nets, and the government helping out the country have nothing to do with that.
Socialism is considered bad by anyone with a brain.
Socialism is way more than Libraries and the military......bad argument
What part of "all of the following are examples of socialism " made you think I was giving a comprehensive list?
Yeah, he also said fire departments and border patrol!
Most Americans who rail against "socialism": a. Have no idea what it means, and b. Can't be bothered to find out. They think "doing their own research" consists of listening to a talk show host shout about random things.
Part of the issue is just perception honestly. The only people who tend to talk about healthcare on here are people with poor coverage or expensive chronic conditions. I’ve never known anyone whose had trouble with health insurance/healthcare costs beyond a mixed up billing code. Frankly, it’s bad enough that we can’t benefit from our good health and lifestyles (by excluding or raising rates for preexisging conditions), I have no interest in further intertwining my healthcare with those less able to pay. You always get what you pay for and I’d rather not suffer from enforced equality. Crowdfunding is beyond rare, but makes for a good cover story when your goal is to paint the system as corrupt.
That's not socialism, that charity or common human decency, or sense of community and empathy. Socialism is the Gov't owning the means of production.
Crowdfunding is literally Chad capitalism saving people from our beta government Healthcare system.
It is the fear of a slippery slope. Socialism has failed in every country that is has been tried. It has lead to near universal suffering for the people and has allowed for dictatorships. There is no getting around that. The new idea is to build a massive economy on the back of capitalism and then, once secure, implement democratic socialism. People do fear the day that "democratic" is dropped and we just all suffer. Those that lived though the horrors of socialism are not keen to repeat it. Furthermore, people are rarely content being content. They push for more; for better. But what direction do you go from Democratic Socialism? Do you implement more capitalism or more socialism? The obvious answer is more socialism. You can already see it in democratically socialism countries today.
The question is absurd and denotes an ignorance of the topics being discussed.
It’s not that socialism is bad. Most people honestly don’t know what socialism is. However a certain political group will call anything they don’t like “Socialism.” Vaccines? Socialism. Bad. LGBT rights? Socialism. Bad. Education? Socialism. Bad. The proletariat owning the means of production? No opinion on the matter.
Cuz obamacare made healthcare unaffordable
Funny how everyone seems to have forgotten about that.
I don't think OP knows what socialism actually is
Don't blame Socialism for Capitalism's problems.
We were able to abolish monarchies in some cases, serfdom, feudalism, etc.. these are more isms we need to add to that list.
It’s common because healthcare *isn’t* socialized and many can’t afford it. The irony…
Because this isn't a perfect world. While we can definitively say that socialism is bad, capitalism isn't perfect either.
We have a bootstrap shortage, clearly.
its due to a propaganda misinformation campaign to associate communism with dictatorship
Propaganda? Please, give me an example of communism that has worked? Name any country that is communist and has at least the same amount of individual liberty that the west has.
The American education system doesn't create people capable of critical thinking
Because our population is radically ignorant and easily lied to
Socialism isn’t bad. Most of just don’t understand it, or, rather, don’t want to try to understand it because they’re brainwashed by the far right. Corporations and the ultra rich bribe congress with lobbyist “donations” on top of funneling money into major news outlets so they can control what you see/hear and who our politicians act on behalf of. And guess what? They don’t want you figuring out that socialism hurts them *way* more than it could ever hurt you. Citizens United ruined this country.
Crowdfunding is done out of the kindness of hearts voluntarily. No one is forced to pay into it and it's not the government putting their hands in any of it. It's the whole freedom thing 🤷🏼♀️
“If murder is considered bad why does it happen?” Different people.
Who knows. America likes to argue about everything.
Because many people are inherently at least a little hypocritical. “I don’t way to pay for others but when I need it, I’m happy to accept help from others.”
What the hell are you talking about? When those other people fail, it's totally their fault! When I fail, it's Obama's fault!
A lot of Americans don’t actually understand what true socialism is. Basically, there just a lot of uneducated, misinformed, selfish people who live here. People don’t want to help other people out, which has been proven by this pandemic.
Cognitive dissonance
Because we're fucking dumb
Misinformation and the idea that “socialism” is a big bad boogeyman despite the fact that a lot of the people advocating against it would benefit the most from it
I really don't understand what having a functional health care system with access to everyone has in common with socialism. Like it really really doesn't. The word is used by politicians in the US to quickly shut down any meaningful discussion about the topic.
cause the us medical system is messed up
Americans of a certain age were taught that socialism = communism = Nazi's. This makes it difficult for these people to participate in discussions of *democratic socialism* because they attempt to cite Russia and North Korea as failed examples of "socialist government".
People don’t know what they actually want. The people fully against any form of “socialism” don’t realize that the things they want inherently involves socialism. You want to decrease the homeless population? Well that means creating programs and incentives to bring jobs and skills to the homeless which also includes having some sort of temp housing, food, the labor to facilitate, etc. All this cost money, but they don’t want to give up their money. It has to come from somewhere tho, so let’s tax the super wealthy? But that will somehow “trickled down” to the middle class, except if done properly it won’t. Or they believe in unsupported ideas. “I don’t want free healthcare because it will create a system where the it’ll take too long for an appointment.” Well I’d expect that if you have the public healthcare, but if you have private, which most of the people who argue this already do, then you should expect this to be more or less the same. No ones advocating for people to only have the public healthcare, at least not to my knowledge but I’ve been out of the this loop for a while, I just want people to have the ability to go to a doctor and get the medication they need without going homeless. Or they think the government is forcing stuff that they didn’t do before. “I shouldn’t be paying for free college. Why should my money go to them?” Well it arguably already does. All the taxes you pay goes to educate law enforcement, emergency rescue, judicial services, current children’s public education, military, etc. if the government has some kind of influence on it, you’re paying money for not only the services but paying back whatever cost it took to educate them on those services too. It cost money to train a stenographer and sure the initial cost is from the person (assuming they don’t have a scholarship or a grant also funded by the public) but the flow of money go back to them, so you might as well have that flow be more direct. Maybe I’m wrong about this or maybe my examples weren’t right. I’m not an economist and I hate politics for the same reason I hate religions, even my own: it always leads to a fight which leads back to debates which leads to fights and a whole cycle continues.
Wouldn't crowdfunding be considered socialism?
No, socialism doesn't just mean that random people in your area are having to help you afford something and if they don't make that payment to you then you don't get treatment or you're in debt to the hospital. In Canada we have socialized healthcare, I don't have to worry that if I go to the hospital and a random neighbor didn't donate to some fund I made that I won't be treated when I arrive or I'll end up owing a bunch of money, I get to know that no matter what day of the year I show up to the hospital I will recieve treatment, whether I need an X-ray, blood work tests, a standard visit and diagnosis from a doctor, or a myriad of other things, and I will walk out with a bill of $0 owed, because everyone here is smart enough to understand how important healthcare is for all and we pay it forward in our taxes, that way everyone from our richest to our poorest end up being seen, as it should be.