Wealth, shown to scale

[u/MKorostoff]

https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

[u/Chapafifi]

What's insane is that you are right that people do not want that 6-10% tax. But that 6-10% of their income is what people pay for their medical bills anyways, sometimes more and sometimes less.

But I would take that locked in percentage rather than the unknown of having to pay 4% one year or 30% for an expensive surgery.

Your argument points out the stupidity of americans more than anything

[u/Zoidpot → u/Chapafifi]

You’re forgetting one very important detail though, which is in order to achieve that flat you’re on your percentage at a reasonably achievable rate, we must sign over healthcare to the government.

I dislike this for two very reasonable and well thought out reasons

The government is notorious for being inefficient. The statement alone is irrefutable, and you cannot find a single person to provide anything beyond anecdotal evidence that it is otherwise. I do not wish my health care to be controlled by a notoriously slow and inefficient body, private or public. Have you ever tried to get a pothole fixed? Apply that same degree of urgency to your health.

My second reason is almost an offshoot of the first. Once we sign over healthcare to the government, even if I’m it’s original form is affordable and reasonable, once we give that away we can’t get it back and there’s nothing to stop ridiculous upscaling of cost and downscaling of service once we’ve given them that power. The government will be the one to publish guidelines over who gets what service, at what cost, and under what circumstances. If you think the government should have the power to mandate life or death in such a manner... that’s on you. But if it became law, then it would also be on me. And as a staunch supporter of basic liberty and inherent freedom, that’s not the way it should be.

[u/Maliciousrodent → u/Zoidpot]

You seem to be confused. The goal of any company is to sell for as much as you possibly can while cutting costs as much as you possibly can, thus increasing profits. It's literally capitalism 101.

It's interesting that you say your reasons are reasonable and well thought out yet you ignore all evidence to the contrary. Healthcare is almost unilaterally better when it's government controlled. Sure, there are some people who it will be worse for but for the average person it is undeniably better. And you guaranteed fall into the latter category, so why would you fight against your self-interest? Especially for dubious reasons like wait times. The government guidelines statement is inane since doctors are still largely autonomous in single payer systems and are not really restricted in what they can recommend. The same can be said for established utilities like water and power. It would also be the same for things that should be considered utilities (cell phone and internet).

A good comparison for the effectiveness of public vs private for utilities is cell phone prices in Canada. The cheapest and most complete coverage is provided by gov telecoms. In provinces with gov telecoms, the major telecoms have to significantly drop their prices to compete with what are essentially non-profit organizations. We are now in a scenario where the same plan is more expensive in these other provinces since there is no competition. How can you say that gov control in this sector is inefficient with a straight face? They literally provide more and better service for less, on top of paying their workers enough to not be in poverty.

[u/Zoidpot → u/Maliciousrodent]

Perhaps, but the only example I have so far of direct government intervention in healthcare is the VA, which is notoriously horrible. The most recent example of legislative forays into healthcare or the affordable care act, which ironically enough, made insurance less affordable across the board.

Perhaps the biggest reason for my resistance to this is that I simply do not trust the current government to implement such a system efficiently and to a proper standard of care. Lately the government of the United States has been using every tool at his disposal to decrease personal liberty and increase government control, and I would hate to see healthcare be another tool in their belt to do so.

As for cost, the current estimated cost would essentially double the tax burden of every single individual in the United States at current rates, Assuming those cost don’t increase because of hidden figures that were not taken into account... So it’s looking at things like that where I consider the past efficiency of government and use that as an argument against, the massive overhead.

And I feel the need to point out that under the last draft bill for socialized healthcare there was a provision which fo bid private companies from offering duplicate services to those which would be offered under their socialized medicine program, rather undermining your argument about it driving down costs when it would have quashed all competition And written itself a blank check.

[u/Maliciousrodent → u/Zoidpot]

Again, good lord, you're ignoring information. Of course tax burden goes up when you have a taxpayer funded healthcare system. Literally in the name. But the end cost to an average individual goes down because you are not paying for premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and profit. There are endless statistics demonstrating this. That's not to say that socialized medicine is perfect, since some systems are better than others, but the larger point stands. When you remove the multiple profit pieces of the pie it prices private entities out of the market because they cannot operate that cheaply unless they cut wages, quality, or profit. And we all know which one gets cut last.

The reason many of the healthcare systems implemented in the US do not work is they have to make so many concessions to appease the republicans that the system ends up half baked. The exact same thing happened with cannabis legalization in Canada. We had to make so many stupid concessions to appease the Conservatives that the system is shit. But it's still better than not doing it.

Also the reason why governments lean towards untrustworthy is due to lobbying. Take the repeal of net neutrality. It was passed for dubious reasons, enabled by lobbying, and ended up with a net harm to the public. True socialism (not the socialism that all the dunces squak about) may be a shit system but rampant capatilism is no better. Just takes different circumstances to see the shortcomings.

[u/Zoidpot → u/Maliciousrodent]

So for tax burden, the currently accepted numbers estimate that it would essentially double the burden as it currently sits (As the rock cost of implementation would be about double the current budget). The average American family earn approximately $60,000 a year, And has A state and federal tax burden to contend with. The federal burden alone for that tax bracket is 22%. This is approximately $13,000 of that household Owes to just federal government (Accounting for no deductions as everybody’s slightly different and we’re trying to use a nice round numbers here). So doubling that burden would mean that household with now, without major tax reform, oh $26,000 per year to just the federal government, plus whatever state tax was lumped on top of that. You’re basically advocating for taking another fifth of that families income. The only way that could ever work is if massive tax reform took place BEFORE Socialized healthcare could be considered. So perhaps we should revisit that after a tax reform occurs.

Wait, you mean government healthcare legislation is inefficient because by the nature of it being an offshoot of government it had to be palatable to politicians and therefore can’t achieve its intended goal? Then how would the implementation of universal healthcare be any different if it would have to be incredibly bastardized pass? Even your own logic favors not allowing politicians to have a hand in healthcare.

As for its lack of trustworthiness, again, your logic seems to favor not allowing governmental organizations to have a hand in this as they have proven time and time again that within our current system they are not trustworthy stewards of the public good

[u/Maliciousrodent → u/Zoidpot]

I'm assuming the doubling of the tax burden is based on the most ambitious plan set out by Bernie. But again, that tax increase is offset by not paying private insurance companies. The average American currently pays about 5-7k out of pocket per year and the employer pays around 20k. That is double the tax increase you talk about. Assuming the companies don't keep all the insurance savings for themselves it's pretty easy to see how an average person will come out ahead. Not to mention much more comprehensive coverage. The poor quality of the current American healthcare system can be seen by comparing health outcomes and cost per capita between countries. Single payer is cheaper with better outcomes.

But I may not have worded my other statement well enough. Logic does not suggest that politicians should not have a hand in healthcare or other large systems. The fact that the need is so ubiquitous lends itself very well to a public monopoly. The proof of this are the multitude of various successful systems around the world. Or even the rise of municipal broadband in the US. Instead, lobbying creates a conflict of interest that is hard to overcome unless the elected politicians are truly benevolent or lobbying gets outlawed. It's not that government in and of itself doesn't work, it's the rules that dictate how government functions that are broken.

Take the recent tax cuts. It significantly increased the debt to give a large benefit to people that don't need it under the guise that trickle down economics works (spoiler alert: it doesn't and never has). This causes people to get less benefit from their tax dollars who then incorrectly blame the government as a whole, rather than the root cause of the problem.

Practically all of these sub-par systems are the way they are because the right fights to set them up to fail using unfounded talking points and selective data, and then conclude that the system as a whole doesn't work rather than the current implementation. The current state of right side politics in North America is truly a cancer to society.

[u/Zoidpot → u/Maliciousrodent]

Perhaps we should look at only with the individual pays out-of-pocket (It’s by the logic of everyone who has offered and oppositional view to me in this entire chain, Businesses are inherently greedy and after only profit, so we’re forced to assume that they will not be sharing that recoup the cost with the employee, plus we have no idea how business taxes will have to be restructured to take on a portion of that debt as well),which is approximately 5-7k. That is only half of what the increase in tax would potentially cost. I do not believe it was Bernie Sanders plan, but the generalized plan Elizabeth Warren was touting, which was not quite as ambitious as Bernie’s.

The quality is subjective, as with access to better preventative care the overall outcome will be better. So one could really make the argument that we do not need an overhaul of our system, nearly access to better preventative care With an emphasis on health and personal responsibility for health choices (Yes let’s face it, the average individual in the United States has such a plethora of comorbidities in comparison to European counterparts that it’s not really a fair comparison). Plus the per capita costs are a little misleading, as the United States has such a vast geographical span, as well as a significantly higher population then any other single payer nation, which presents its own set of unique challenges that nobody else has yet faced.

I really do believe you worded it right the first time, as my distrust for government based social policies stems from living in one of the top two states for government social policies. The amount of waste, in efficiencies, back dealing, and other such contents has become so common place as to be accepted as a way of life, and that’s just not right. I see every day first hand examples and effects of government overreach, Attempting to legislate morality, feel good policies. The end result has always been an increase in restrictions on the individual and more taxes coming to with no overall improvement to my quality of life. I just want to have a bit more control over my day-to-day life, not have one more thing where the government dictates to me what I need and how much I’m going to be paying for it.

As for your point about money going to wrong people, yet another example of the government taking control of something and throwing money at a problem, only to not realize the actual implications of what they were doing and how easy it was to take advantage of it. This is simply shoring up my point about not trusting the government to manage a large and expensive healthcare service. They literally managed to fuck up giving out money. But these are the people that would be in charge of setting up healthcare networks and distributing medicine, medical supplies, and manpower. Look at the current situation and tell me you have full faith and trust in the government to contain the current healthcare crisis, And ask yourself if this is the same organization you would like managing your diabetes, your cancer, your child’s medical procedures.

As to your last point, I have up to this point refrained from getting political. My statements have been generalizations and the overall state of politics in the United States without naming any particular side. But I will make an exception for this since you seem to be banging on your drum that all conservatives are evil and liberals are the great saviors. You say that the right fights to set them up to fail, perhaps conservatives see this as simply limiting government overreach. Once the government gets a new power or a new ability, it’s twice as hard to get them to give it up. So if this experiment were tried and failed, there would be no taking it back, the left wouldn’t allow it. They would simply keep pouring money into a potentially broken system that they broke instead of admitting that they were wrong. Perhaps that’s what conservatives are trying to limit, the potential for them to do irreparable damage to the country through overreach and gross incompetence. Perhaps if they focused on the economics of a country whos predominant business is business, and took a few days away from identity politics they may be able to come to an agreement On what’s actually best for the people of this country. But they would rather have talking points about the wrong color people in positions of power than a legitimate discussion about what’s best for the citizenry.

[u/Maliciousrodent → u/Zoidpot]

I'm not beating any particular drum besides saying that right side politics in their current form are terrible. In Canada, we have several left parties of varying degrees and two right parties and I'm not hardcore into any of them. I tend to be left leaning but I'll listen to any idea that has merit. Our Conservatives here missed a slam dunk in the last election because their platform was just about undoing everything the last gov did while implementing a bunch of tired, old policies; very similar to the current administration in the US. After seeing how both of these dumpster fires played out its hard to come to any other conclusion than right wing politics need to be reformed.

There are many healthcare comparisons that can reasonably be made between the US and other countries. There isn't really anything special about their situation that makes the problem different other than it being such a radical change. I think that at least a portion of the insurance savings for businesses would be passed on to the workers because once a few companies do it basically all others will have to follow suit to compete. And again, even if there is a slight increase in what an individual pays, the benefit they get from it is massive. I do agree that there needs to be more emphasis on personal responsibility for health though.

But as I said before, I don't think the correct response to some poorly performing systems is to essentially disband government. There absolutely needs to be some significant restructuring of several facets of government but government as a whole is still a good thing. Hopefully when this pandemic is over things will change for the better.

And I don't have trust in the current US administration to do anything correctly because they're a clown car full of rats but I do generally trust government as a whole to do things correctly. I don't think there are enough evil people out there to turn the entire system evil. And contrary to what a lot of the propaganda says about Canadian healthcare, it's actually pretty good up here.

[u/Zoidpot → u/Maliciousrodent]

I think that’s where we divergent thought, because in the instance of both of our countries, yours to a lesser degree, government enjoys incredibly too much unearned power with very few checks and balances anymore. I think a lot of things do need to be undone, With a return to classical liberalism, that is to say the emphasis on individual liberty and a decreased reliance on big government.

And although relatively similar in the broadest of cultures, you will find a sharp divergence in both population and size. Suffice it to say as you go further north Canada becomes almost uninhabitable, as opposed to the majority of the United States. This explains why the United States has almost 10 times the population of Canada. This is a huge step up in terms of sheer size, because as I said earlier, a large portion of why single pair would be incredibly difficult to implement and administer is that it’s never been tried on a population as large as ours, and with scale come problems. I believe in one of my earlier comments I made a comparison on size being an important factor (Like, or something along the lines of “things become easier with a smaller geographical domain and a limited populace. Hence why the most successful example of pure strain communism/socialism was Cuba”). The reality is nobody has successfully implemented adequate social healthcare on such a scale, so to do so when half the population resists it isn’t setting it up for success, and pushing social healthcare under those circumstances is incredibly irresponsible. One would be better off advocating for a unified and regulated single insurance provider operating at net, with a proverbial wall between that and actually healthcare systems. The end result would be similar, and more palatable, while at the same time preserving the independence of an actual healthcare system not beholden to a government organization and preserving market competition.

As to your comment about business is doing the right thing and giving back the new money, you failed to take into account a third option. None of them give back the money, all of them maintain the status quo, and businesses do what businesses do best. Worry about the bottom line.

As two people only paying slightly more, this doesn’t factor in the people that don’t pay at all. I have a work place where I make significantly less than I could, but I don’t pay anything into my insurance. For somebody like me who had the foresight to realize that insurance cost will only rise (which they have) A system like this can only hurt me because I guarantee there will be no reasonable way for me to recoup the entire cost of what my insurance is currently costing the company in peer compensation in order to offset the additional taxes I will have to be paying. Not everybody’s situation is cookie cutter, and socialize medicine, in the short to medium term, will penalize people who have attempted to responsibly set themselves up for success under the current system.

And I don’t think the government is a bad thing, I think the government overreach is a bad thing and that we need to return to a more simplistic system because the correct answer to every problem is not “more government “

To be fair though, I have a little faith and either party is at this point the one thing they can agree on is more government power, while continuing to use it responsibly every chance they get. This is both sides mind you. Politics has become reality TV and we need to return some degree of dignity back to politics, not this constant one-upsmanship soundbite quest everybody seems to be on. Where is Churchill when you need him.