• 9 Posts
  • 74 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 25th, 2023

help-circle

  • but when you were shown to be wrong about your 30%

    You showed nothing. Both the US and Europe mostly rely on making the employer pay, though in Europe it’s typically mandatory and sent to a national system rather than the employer deciding by itself (or not) to pay for a private insurer for varying level of coverage. So there’s just no way the US employers pay 300% more for a system which is “only” 50% more costly.

    (also co-pays are fairly standard everywhere in Europe, to avoid abuses)

    So that’s my best guess at your motivation, but please correct me. Why?

    My motivation is fighting misinformation. Just because the misinformation comes from the side you support doesn’t mean you should ignore it. In this case someone just made up shock numbers to get engagement and clicks, and that’s not how you support a sound health care policy.


  • US GDP is much higher than most (all?) European nations.

    And as you accurately pointed out, US population is also higher, and have different costs of living. Which is why we compare countries in % of GDP and not in raw dollars spent nationwide, which would make no sense at all.

    The US also has a massive population, which means a much larger insurance pool, which means the risk is spread out over a much larger swathe of people (and ethnicities, lifestyles, etc.).

    Doesn’t make any difference when you go over a few million people (or possibly much less)

    So I’m not going to say this pic is accurate, as I have no actual numbers on this

    Well I do, and this pic is clearly bullshit.

    Just because you like the message doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to point out obvious lies.


  • The point is that the USA relies primarily on employers paying for the insurance (through a pay cut) whereas in the EU it is generally subsidised with taxes.

    This is a huge misconception. In the EU it’s also funded by the employers, the difference is that it’s usually mandatory (a tax taken out of the paycheck at the employer level) and also typically goes into a governement-run insurance system (ie the British NHS or the French sécu).

    Ultimately it’s always people who pay for health care, because companies are just legal entities. The difference is how it’s organized and how much it cost.


  • It’s a meme, it’s not meant to be accurate

    That’s what every boomer on FB propagating fake news about immigrants eating pets also say. Just because it’s a picture means outright lying is okay. (and if it was lying in the other political direction, you’d likely be the first calling bullshit)

    Why you our here shilling for big business pal?

    Ah yes because everyone who isn’t into lying is “shilling for big business”? Life must be simple in your head. Maybe some people think the truth matters more then coddling their feeling?









  • The issue with housing is that the supply is limited. If you increase demand and not supply you just increase prices. Giving buyers $25k extra to spend means every home owner is now gonna jack up their selling price by $25k. This is, in the end, a subsidy for existing home-owners. Who already are doing pretty well, thank you very much.

    Denying the existence of supply and demand always lead to policy failure. The way to address housing cost is to lower the cost of housing, not make housing more expensive by helping people outbid each others.












  • “Taxing at 100% also brings no tax revenue” is already a stupid statement, and is Tautologically contradictory

    It’s not. If you work 40h per week and can do overtime but that overtime is taxed at 100% (because yes, that’s what marginal rate means, it’s the rate the extra income will be taxed), virtually nobody will bother doing that overtime. The handful who do will probably not clock-in because anyway, there’s no point since it will bring no income after taxation.