"I'll will happily pay half my paycheck for gimmes"
Posted Aug 22, 2018, 5:36 PM UTC
242100
It's staggering how just typing the sentence "I will pay ... for free healthcare" doesn't just make any lick of sense at all.
"I'll pay you for that apple if you give it to me for free."
109
He probably makes 20k a year and knows he could never cover the costs of what he’s getting from others in return. No, he’s ok with making 50% less because he’s getting 200% more, and you’re going to pay for it.
81
Single mom working part time is willing to give up five grand a year for eighty grand in benefits.
And since these people are willing to make these sacrifices, you should be too. And if you're not, you should be shamed, because you're not willing to do what it takes to help the poor (who also coincidentally happen to be the people doing the shaming).
45
THE COST OF HEALTHCARE THIRD PARTY IS MEASURED IN THE HUNDREDS, PLURAL, HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS. Got damn you people are dense. If he pays 45% of his check and it nets him guaranteed health insurance, AND the ability to go to college, then he’s actually getting more out of his 45% check loss.
SOURCE: I went to fucking Purdue out of pocket. I can assure you that 45% of my check being enough to cover both my health insurance AND tuition is impossible. Thanks, Capitalism, inflation, and ignorant backwards ass GOP corporate welfare dispersing congressman.
-31
you people are dense
I’m not sure who you’re responding to. You just provided a real life example of exactly what I said, proving my point. Was reading comprehension not available at Purdue?
22
I thought I was backing you up. I didn’t need reading comprehension as a pre-req for my program, as they expected us to have that on lockdown in high school. Your failure to infer isn’t my problem.
-17
Hey you realize your point is the same point the person you're replying to was making, right?
13
I went to fucking Purdue out of pocket. I can assure you that 45% of my check being enough to cover both my health insurance AND tuition is impossible.
You think free education would mean everyone gets a Purdue level education?
5
If he pays 45% of his check and it nets him guaranteed health insurance, AND the ability to go to college, then he’s actually getting more out of his 45% check loss.
which necessarily means that someone is getting significantly less than the 45% they pay out of their check.
4
Probably more like, “Hey Bernie, I’ll give you the lose change in my pocket in exchange for a college education, lifetime healthcare, six months of paid vacation a year...and let’s throw in some roads and a space army too. Do we have a deal?”
Bernie, “This just feels right...and I never go against my feelings. You got yourself a deal!”
25
it's amazing to me how a first world country doesn't take care of its own citizens.
I hate this "take care of" trope. I take care of my family, I take care of my friends, I don't want to "take care of" you, and I don't expect you to take care of me either!
Leave me the fuck alone!
"take care of" is such a nice way to say "give money to".
53
Could’ve sworn that one dude...
Oh yeah Rousseau and all them other 1700s dudes explained why government don’t touch muh stuff...
“Please take my money if you give me free stuff”
3
“Fund the lifestyle of”.
2
one accident away from bankruptcy
It’s so funny how pervasive this myth is. What protects you from bankruptcy in case of an accident is not government, it’s insurance. That fact is true regardless of who provides that insurance.
People in many European countries have their government double as their insurance company and have their premiums lumped with their taxes. In the US most of us have a separate company insure our medical expenses, and pay premiums separately.
The downside to the European model is that to get different insurance, you have to either change your vote (which is hard because your one vote is already lumping together 100 different issues covering foreign and domestic policy), or move to a different country. Plus you lose the benefit of competition.
Of course in addition to providing insurance, most European countries also implement price fixing for medical care, which is why they often have lower costs. But that’s independent of providing insurance.
52
Oh, okay, so why is insurance more expensive than most people can afford? You act like Insurance grows on trees. At least the ACA exists.
It’s funny how pervasive your myth is.
-32
Oh, okay, so why is insurance more expensive than most people can afford? You act like Insurance grows on trees. At least the ACA exists, but I bet you people don’t like that either? A bunch of retards in this sub if you ask me.
The ACA raised premiums while drastically cutting coverage with the exception of people that qualify for the heavy end of subsidies. Insurance costs more than some people can afford for a lot of reasons, such as our doctors making >2x the amount that doctors working for the NHS in the UK make and our spending on medical research.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/physician-salaries/384846/
https://www.indeed.co.uk/cmp/Nhs/salaries?job_category=meddr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending
People here will probably also point out that ~50% of healthcare spending in the US is done by the gov't, that we have stringent and onerous professional licensure with regards to health care professionals, that we have a lot of litigation whereas it's harder to sue gov't health agencies in countries with socialized health care, and stuff like that. It's not nearly as simple as "muh greedy nazi GOP boomers hate the poor".
30
Do you ever stop for one second to think? What makes insurance so expensive is government. All their regulations and artificial monopolies make everything related to healthcare more expensive.
24
Do I ever stop to think??
Insurance is not expensive due to regulation. I work for a major PNW insurance provider, and the actuaries who determine the cost assess risk HUGELY on the amount of people paying premiums. The less people have insurance, the more it costs. That was how the ACA was supposed to reduce insurance cost, by forcing everyone to get insurance. Regulation keeps costs under control, by limiting the out of control hikes we have experienced in the last 15 years. Regulation keeps the greedy at bay.
Additionally, government subsidies, paid for my taxpayers, helped offset the costs as well. We were almost making sense by having single payer. Instead it was a partial payment from single payer. But the GOP has to go and muddle and ruin it for all of us middle class. I’d hate to be below the poverty line because god help them it’s expensive to be poor. Maybe if they could also afford education we wouldn’t all be stuck in this mess.
-18
ACA made the prices of treatment go up and made the quality go down.
> determine the cost assess risk HUGELY on the amount of people paying premiums
You know what also determines the price? The hospitals and pharma companies who receive monopolies from the government, so they raise their prices as they wish.
> Regulation keeps the greedy at bay.
Having competition keeps the greed away, you absolute imbecile. Regulation means that the government hands out favours to corporations and eliminate their competition, and as a result they can raise their prices as much as they want.
21
This guy doesn’t do Liberty.
3
Insurance for any product costs the average of all expenses. Working age people in the US spend roughly $7k per person per year on medical care. And amazingly, health insurance for a single person costs roughly that amount, on average. Insurance is expensive simply because we spend so much on medicine.
That fact does not change in Europe. Their insurance company (run by the government) also charges premiums equal to what they spend on health care. They just lump it into taxes.
Insurance takes a situation where most people spend very little and some people spend a lot, and it allows everyone to spend the average amount. But you don’t want that – you want to pay much less than the average amount and have someone else pay the difference. That’s called welfare – you’re not able to pay your bills and you would like someone else to pay them for you.
10
You’re not only wrong, but by referencing the recent Mercatus study at George Mason, funded BY conservatives, JUST released a few weeks ago, went to show the literal trillions in savings over a decade if we had a single payer, tax funded Medicare for all plan. We literally just disproved that.
The problem is that that might be the case if you’re a single male, but if you were a single income family of four, your rates are far beyond your means. Unless you are arguing for child labor (for the benefits), that point falls apart. The majority of America is made of families, not single middle age people.
I pay 65 a month for my plan because I WORK for the insurer. So I could sit back and not complain , but I can SEE my neighbors and friends who can’t afford insurance and medications. Having access to healthcare at an affordable rate to STAY ALIVE should be a god given right in a country as fucking resource rich as ours. If you can think of a way to make that happen that doesn’t involve single payer, I’m all ears.
EDIT: and I don’t mean REACTIVE healthcare, I mean preventative! People don’t not go to the doctor for preventative care because the don’t care about their health. Uninsured citizens aren’t going because they can’t afford insurance. How do you make insurance more affordable, without asking insurance companies to operate at a loss? You can’t. It doesn’t work, yet we are still in need of the insurance and healthcare.
-4
went to show the literal trillions in savings over a decade if we had a single payer, tax funded Medicare for all plan. We literally just disproved that.
You literally didn't read the report. That $2T "savings" is based on the best-case scenario -- that healthcare providers behavior won't change one bit despite having their pay cut by 40%, that administrative costs will be cut by over 50% and that there would be significant savings via negotiation with prescription drug companies. The likelihood of all of those things being true is effectively 0%, which is why the second estimate put forth (based on what they consider to be a more probable outcome) in the same study showed an increase in spending of over $3T.
But hey, don't let reality stop you from claiming a false victory.
As a side note, you seem like the kind of guy/gal that would be upset if WalMart was the only purchaser of low-wage labor (aka a monopsony) as you would ostensibly argue it would have a negative effect on those who would be employed since a lack of competition forces wages down and so on and so forth. Ironically you celebrate that very scenario for the ENTIRE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY. I can't be the only one that sees the irony in that, right?
10
First off, that Mercatus study is a great intelligence test. Anyone with even a bit of common sense can instantly see the problem with it. Basically they assume a price change without trying to determine what it does to supply and demand. That would be like McDonalds thinking about doubling the price of a burger and saying it doubles revenue without even considering that fewer people would buy burgers at twice the price. That is, that study is as good as useless.
Why are you mentioning affordability? That has literally zero to do with anything here. Children spend roughly $4k per year on health care. This means that on average a family of four will spend roughly $20k. Again, this is very much aligned with premiums plus deductibles for a family plan.
So to have a family of four and have virtually infinite access to health care, you need to be prepared to spend $20k. That’s what it costs to have highly trained doctors, scientists, and medical equipment at your beck and call. If you want to spend less, then it means you want to be on welfare – you can’t pay your family’s bills and want someone else to support you.
5
It's alarming that you don't see any relation between insurance being expensive and the burdens placed upon it by the ACA.
9
ACA: higher cost, less coverage
1
They really don't understand what free things are... someone is always paying for it somewhere somehow
30
There's no free lunch, never.
9
They understand it perfectly fine, they just think they're entitled to the wealth of other people.
3
Education, healthcare, and social security in a free market shouldn't be anywhere close to 45% of one's income unless they're in the deep lower class
24
Education, healthcare, and social security in a free market shouldn't be anywhere close to 45% of one's income unless they're in the deep lower class
This is the thing people never seem to understand.
- Statist: "I couldn't afford the $30,000 to treat that illness, therefore Muh-Socialism!"
- Ancap: "What if it were only $300 to treat that same illness, but you had to pay it yourself? Oh, and you get to keep 100% of every single paycheck."
- Statist: "Math is hard."
25
What's ensuring that it doesn't rise from $300 to $30,000 though? I'm genuinely curious, I'm just not sure what would make the price only $300
1
Well obviously I'm pulling random numbers out of the air... but...
In a free market, competition and innovation drive prices down and quality up. When you mess with a free market, you tend to derail those two things.
Here's an example:
Insurance companies compete for customers. They know that the customer will usually opt for whichever company provides the best value (cost/services). There is a strong incentive for them, then, to negotiate lower amounts with hospitals, etc. for services... the lower the cost of services, the greater percentage they can keep as profit — and it's a balancing act setting a price that minimizes expenses, maximizes profits, and comes as close to (without exceeding) the amount of money your customer base will bear. Don't minimize expenses and maximize profits? Your competition will outperform you and steal all your customers (increased profit aids in innovation to stay relevant in the marketplace). Charge too much? All your customers will jump ship.
Enter ACA ("Obamacare")... one thing it did was cap the percentage of profit an insurance company could make and it forced people to buy insurance (both major interferences to a free market). Now the insurance company has a strong incentive to negotiate higher amounts with hospitals, etc. since their profit is directly tied to and completely limited by the dollar amount of the services themselves. In addition, they don't have to worry too much about higher costs driving away customers because the government is forcing people to buy their product.
That's just one example off the top of my head.
So ... would it be a hundred-fold difference in price? Who knows, probably depends on the service/procedure/etc.
I will, though, cite a story from 2016 where the hospital charged a man $7 for a bandaid (the services to apply said bandaid are the real meat of the story... but I contend that a $7 bandaid is outrageous). Considering I can get a box of 60 bandaids for $2 at the grocery store (I just checked) — or $0.03/each — that puts the hospital bandaid at around 233 times the price of a "free market" bandaid. Food for thought.
Edit: and just applying that bandaid math to my hypothetical numbers above, that would mean that the $30,000 procedure would be about $130 in the free market. Again... none of this is solid, for sure, but it's food for thought.
Edit 2: realized that I wrote 233% when it should be 233 times.
9
The problem with your bandaid analogy is that is you provide the service yourself when you buy your own so the meat of the hospitals price is eliminated. A $30,000 procedure is most likely something you wouldn't be able do yourself so you would still have to factor in that part of the price making it higher than your estimation.
1
Why doesn't a McDonald's hamburger cost $30,000?
6
Because we aren’t in Venezuela.
2
Competition would. Currently government hands out monopolies and regulates the competition out of business.
3
An accidental injury cannot bankrupt you in the US. An emergency room will always treat you, including any surgery or hospital stay required to keep you alive. The hospital is not allowed to come after your assets to cover the cost of treatment. Like all other unsecured debts, the worst they can do is ruin your credit which doesnt mean youre bankrupt. You just cant borrow money.
We are already forced to pay taces for disability "insurance" through our employers payroll taxes. That will cover your bills while youre out of work as long as you arent massively in debt already.
The belief that an injury or life threatening illness will force you to live on the street in america is plainly false!
16
So set aside half your paycheck and use it for all these services you’re talking about. What’s so hard about that?
These people have no sense about them
9
The role of government is not to give free shit to people.
8
The only free thing they should give people is freeDOM
2
I've been through bankruptcy. It did not kill me.
7
Right?
"I'm living paycheck to paycheck and I've got no assets. I can't afford to go through bankruptcy!"
Wrong.
3
It is amazing to me how a first world country doesn't take care of its own citizens.
It's amazing to me how a first world adult can't take care of himself.
7
Savage.
3
And if that's what those services all cost there's no problem. Without knowing how much this person earns it's difficult to know if 45% covers it though.
6
It's amazing to me how adults want someone else to take care of them...then I remember Amendment XIX.
6
Thats fine just dont tell us how to live. It doesnt all have to be the same.
5
At least he called us a first world country >_>
5
Does he really think the govt isnt gonna keep most of that money?
4
give them 45% then. no one stopping you. just because you don't care about extortion doesn't mean we should be forced to pay. such BS from these people
3
In my state over 45% of my income goes to some sort of tax now!
2
So $4.00 an hour.
2
Hmm, well you can't get that "free" stuff unless you pay up.
1
"I wanna pay half my paycheck for free stuff!"
Ah yes, bribing people with their own money, the worlds 2nd oldest profession.
[deleted]
Exactly.
I guarantee her 45% wouoldn't come close to the cost of the services she would directly get, not even starting on the "safety net".
He argument is essentially "I want things and don't want to pay the actual cost of them".
And much less honest than the first.
A misconception is that prostitution is "the world's oldest profession".
I would postulate that the oldest profession is Sales, and the prostitution is simply a product to be sold.
Oldest profession is obviously hunter and/or gatherer.
I guess it depends if you define profession as existing before trade/bartering systems. At that point it was just a function that had to be performed by every family unit as necessity, but not really a marketable skill.
Second oldest is thief. I'd say salesman/prostitute was around 3rd or 4th.
Well, since bonobos haven't developed currency yet, but have figured out that other bonobos will trade food for sex, I'm leaning toward prostitution.
But really, the term "world's oldest profession" is more of a commentary about human nature and the absurdity of trying to control consenting sexual behavior.
So, sales. Right.
Could you link to that? Where it was studied that they were trading?
Bad news: Half your paycheck isn't enough
Ah yes, he is a european, they can afford those things because we pay for their defense. Id hate to live in a country that relied on another nation to have to defend it from muslim hordes at the door.
But they precisely don't defend their borders from muslim hordes
[deleted]