Some examples would be useful. Yes, many that don't pay tax benefit from the government, and yes, you can view that as a working class paying for the unemployed.

Imagine, if you will, a 50-year-old woman on the dole (she's paid a monthly sum by the government). In Germany, for instance, this is only paid if she can prove that she applied, and continues to apply for work/seek employment.

It's a bit of a mad circle - she doesn't want work, because she has a comfortable, if meagre life. Of course she dutifully applies for employment every month, and occasionally lands an interview.

She's been out of work for so long though, that's she's no longer employable. She's too old for manual labour, cannot type, doesn't do Internet. And so no one will have her.

It's not ideal for someone expecting to get out what they put into the system, but it's a social safety net that's better than forcing people out onto the street. Will all the problems that brings.

And yes, the 50-year-old gets "free" healthcare. Which I contribute to, from my hard work. And I think this system among the best on the planet.

> And yes, the 50-year-old gets "free" healthcare. Which I contribute to, from my hard work. And I think this system among the best on the planet.

I wish more people had that attitude.

Instead, in the US, we have people actively making their own lives worse because they don't want to give others things they don't believe they "deserve".

If taking more out of my paycheck would get all the homeless people off the streets, I would happily do that. I personally believe that everyone has a right to housing, but even if I didn't care about people, I'd be ok with it because getting homeless people off the streets makes my life better too.

Ensuring that people aren't insecure about housing and food translates to lower crime rates and safer neighborhoods.

It makes me genuinely angry that anti-welfare people don't get this, and actively lobby against their own interest. I'm sure there are some people who just believe that welfare programs don't work, and are against them on those grounds, but most of the rhetoric I hear seems to be around not giving people things they haven't worked for and don't deserve.

Your last paragraph is the bit that resonates with me.

Paying taxes to treat people humanely and with dignity is a good option because when people are desperate, riots and violence are not far away.

And if your thoughts are to push people to that extreme so you can be violent against them, then it is you who are the lesser person.

we americans seem to prefer paying for bombs more than paying to have our own citizens treated decently

i think you are referring to the american government.

now, we are suckers for people giving us promises that they cant seem to keep. That's a different story.

As someone who was born under the NHS in Scotland, grew up in Australia under its Medicare system (and the introduction of partial privatiz(s)ation), and has lived in the US since 2006, no-one is laboring under that misapprehension. Medicare tax is indeed a line item on Australian taxation paperwork.

I don't know where you get the impression that I'm criticizing the NHS or a nationalized Healthcare service. I'm all for a nationalized healthcare service. My issue is with people who pay nil significant taxes in Europe gloating ignorantly about how European Healthcare is free, and won't stop shitting on American Healthcare. Yeah, your healthcare is cheaper than the US but it isn't free. There is a whole bunch of middle class folks and upper class folks paying for it.

Bruh.

You have deep issues. No thinking thinks anything is free. Its free as in I can walk in get treated and walk out without having a cent or anyone asking about my credit details. The difference is in the quality of care as gov run hospitals have much tighter budget constraints and can't treat patients with as much delicacy as private medical institutions.

> You have deep issues

Thanks for the personal attacks. Highly appreciated /s

> The difference is in the quality of care as gov run hospitals have much tighter budget constraints and can't treat patients with as much delicacy as private medical institutions.

Yet somehow places such as Singapore, Thailand and Japan manage to provide top notch healthcare even in government institutions, healthcare that is much better than most private European hospitals.

And yes, my point was exactly about how a not insignificant number of people in Europe seem to think that their healthcare comes for free (because they don't pay tax for a variety of reasons).

No; everyone knows that goods and services, including those supplied by government, come at an economic cost.

This slur of outright idiocy via economic illiteracy is fiction, and applying slurs to people from a specific region on the basis of their economic circumstances is bigotry 101, so the personal admonishment above is hardly surprising.

Sure. Personal attacks are uncalled for and I retract that part of my statement.

But the rest of my points still stand.

Just a thought, "paying nil significant taxes" would mean lower or nil income...? we could also include refugees, prisoners in that group I guess.... these people, may also be providing a huge extra to society in the form of being low paid, having future potential or not adding to externalisation costs such as increased infrastructure needs higher income earners do... also I think the main criticisms of the US health system is that insurance is in most cases part of the job contract and that there are huge (cost) inefficiencies due to insurers battling over coverage costs with health providers... as an aside I live in Romania and as a low income earner I forgoe insurance because it's a lot cheaper to get care when I need it

> insurance is in most cases part of the job contract and that there are huge (cost) inefficiencies due to insurers battling over coverage costs with health providers.

To say nothing of how maddening it is to have to change doctors every time we change jobs, or to lose coverage for certain conditions when we change jobs, or to have to perfectly time certain life events such as childbirth or pregnancy to either before or after we change jobs, or to make sure we don't get sick during the probationary period while we're changing jobs, and so on.

Even if there is a large group of people who believe that, why do you care so much? How do their beliefs, as foolish as they may be, actually negatively impact you?

Uhm, I guess that you have some inner frustrations, as I have yet to meet someone who thinks that healtcare is literally free.

If you're talking about people who for some reason don't understand European tax laws (which is a lot of people in the mainland and in the US), yeah I'm quite frustrated.

My issue is with people who pay nil significant taxes in Europe gloating ignorantly about how European Healthcare is free, and won't stop shitting on American Healthcare. Yeah, your healthcare is cheaper than the US but it isn't free. There is a whole bunch of middle class folks and upper class folks paying for it. And I'm not even supporting the American model.

That is not reality, that is what American right thinks about European people. We of course know that we are paying for healthcare with our taxes, but we also know that in the end what we pay is lower than what we would pay without a government healthcare system. So we chose this healthcare system consciously.

Do we though?

What % of the general population do you think can actually come close to estimate the real cost of their complete annual health care premium cost (let alone actual procedures or services like emergencies)?

And what subset of that do you think would be incredibly shocked at the actual price ?

> the situation in Europe is unsustainable with all the youth and elders voting for "free healthcare" (it's so hard to make them understand it's free for them but oh so expensive for many others)

I think you might misunderstand how the systems work. First of all, there is no such thing as European healthcare. Every country has their own system. In Germany for instance, 14.6% of your post tax income go towards healthcare (capped at a post tax income of EUR 58.050). No one thinks it's free and it isn't free for anybody except for those who really cannot afford it which have never heard anyone critizise.

When I left Australia, which is now 14 years ago, so grain of salt: you paid 1% income tax for Medicare, unless you were above a certain income level, in which it became 1.5%. If you opted out of the system, you could purchase private insurance, and would not be subject to this tax. There was a floor, where below or near "minimum income" levels, you were also not required to pay this tax.

> For instance, you can use taxpayers money to give birth if you want, but you don't choose the date, you don't get a room for long and no way you get a C-Section unless you risk dying.

This makes absolutely no sense. Short of induction agents, which have varying degrees of efficacy, if you're not getting a C-section, the healthcare industry, hospital, don't decide when you give birth, you/your baby do.

(Australian here)

Note that the 1% (or 1.5%) Medicare levy doesn't fully fund the health system here.

The Medicare levy has never actually covered the cost of our public health system. It's theoretically a hypothecated tax that goes to health care, but the system is funded, like everything else, out of general revenue.

The system in Australia is:

* All Australian permanent residents (and some travellers) are able to access Medicare services. The services are funded by a combination of Federal and State governments.

* GPs/Surgeons/Specialists get set amounts from Medicare for different services delivered to patients. The amounts are set by the Federal health department and is the subject to ongoing arguments between the service providers and the government about the amount paid.

* For GP and out patient services, if the provider is willing to deliver the service at the set amount, then they "bulk bill" and the service is delivered "free at the point of delivery" to the paitent. If the provider charges more, then there is a "gap" that must be paid by the patient and cannot (by law and regulation) be covered by private insurance.

* For in-patient services, patients are either "private" or "public". Publicly funded hospitals accept patients of both types, private hospitals only accept "private" patients.

* Private patient services still receive the same reimbursement at a set value from the government. However, if the provider charges over that rate, private insurance is allowed to cover that "gap". Insurance companies can offer differing plans with different levels of cover for that "gap", as well as offering things like single patient wards, choice of physician/specialist etc.

* Public patients in a public hospital receive exactly the same services as private patients, but they: a) don't get to choose their doctor, b) are subject to waiting lists based on capacity, degree of urgency, etc.

* A public patient at a public hospital receives all services "free at the point of delivery". Private patients receive the same reimbursement, then their private insurance will reimburse according to their plan, then any remaining "gap" is payable by the patient.

* The "Medicare levy" is a theoretical additional tax that is added to a person's marginal tax, but it has never really covered the cost.

* As an incentive to get private insurance, the government subsidizes it at 30% and there are sticks and carrots (increased Medicare levy, age related reduction in subsidy if insurance is not continually held etc).

* Private insurance price increases are government regulated and require approval of the minister each year.

Subsidies for prescription medicines is a completely different system (the "PBS").

I opened my last paycheck, the tax is 10% (Eastern Europe).

There is some undeniable truth in this discussion: people with higher income pay for the people with lower income. 10% of 100,000€ is a lot more than 10% of 20,000€.

And so what? That's how a functioning society should work. I would much rather have 90k€ after health care taxes than 18k€; the higher earner is still coming out far ahead.

It's not like the private insurance system is "equitable" either. I am very healthy and hardly ever need to see a doctor, but my insurance comes in at around $650/mo (mostly paid by my employer, but the money still has to come from somewhere). I definitely do not incur anywhere near $650/mo in health care costs of my own; I'm paying for care for people much sicker than I am, who incur health care costs higher than what they pay into insurance.

Because 20K is a smaller number than 100K.

Taxes work with the basic assumption that people need some money to live, there is a humanitarian aspect to it if you see the govt positively or you can say, people in govt dont like thier head too far away from their bodies..

Considering disposable income; 10% of 100,000€ is alot less, taxes are not noticable for me as a high income earner.

I don't know why you want to draw comparisons to the Australian system here. We're comparing European to American, and the vast amount of ignorant thought in Europe about how healthcare is free.

Because the comment I replied to mentioned nothing to do with Europe?

> There never has been and will never be 'free healthcare for all' - its not free, it's only free for some people if some other people pay for it.

That's what I replied to. I also mentioned living with one European system, and a similar Australian system that are both largely considered "effectively free (or at least, out of pocket)", and how no-one living under either system that I've been a part of, thinks that their healthcare is "literally free".

In fact, most of the tropes about "It's not really free, you're paying for it with taxes!" come from Americans bemoaning the insidious evil that they consider "healthcare for all" systems to be. It's a straw man, built up by some to decry "socialism".

> before fleeing communism to move to China

Is there some level of humour here that I'm missing? (and yes I know all the subtleties around the Chinese system. But still - that's a heck of a sentence to throw out uncritically)

He makes a lot of valid points about the unsustainability of the European system, but yeah couldn't help a chuckle at that line.

The "valid points" about how socialism will surely drive all of Europe bankrupt within the next decade have been repeated for the last seventy years. I'm sure they're right this time, though.

Of course, the European model is extremely sustainable if you can ignore the not insignificant amount of cost cutting and lack of coverage of certain drugs for orphan diseases. You can literally just talk to any doctor or nurse in the NHS system and ask them about how quality of care has declined over the past decade, while their professionals' workload has only increased unsustainably. And we're talking about one of the best run healthcare systems in Europe here.

It's of course nothing like the American system which is a bastardization of Healthcare, but it's no utopia either. Costs of delivering healthcare have increased in Europe mostly due to wasteful spending.

I don't know if you bothered to read his points after the first line, but he clearly outlined the Asian model of healthcare, and clearly criticizes the American model.

> lack of coverage of certain drugs for orphan diseases

This is literally the case in the US too. It's not "right" in Europe, when it happens, nor is it in the US.

US pharma companies have, repeatedly, discontinued cheaper, and in some cases, the only effective, medications when they've deemed them not profitable enough.

> The European ones are vast communist machines that can't pay for themselves.

Do you have any proof of that?

A family member is an expert in this area working for the government in a high position for a long time and they update quarterly the estimations on when the system will fall, not if. The current calculation is less than 15 years and it is fairly constant for the past 10-15 years. In the discussions they have between countries the situation varies a lot, from countries that are going from default to default like Greece) or close (PIGS) to countries that are almost stable (Germany), but on average the situation is bad.

For example I was told 10 years ago never to expect to retire because there will be no money for the public pension system when I will have the age. It is on an accelerating fall and the politicians are messing it up even further, pensions were increased by law by 40% about a year ago: if there is no future, you can start ruining the present.

This is a bit of a misterpretation. Yes they make that calculation but to know how to adjust the age of retirement and because there are shunt laws that limit the expenditure to a given percentage of gdp.

Portugal(p in pigs) is such a country and this shunt law is a 2/3 law meaning if debt ceilings are overridden by government or parliament it will be struck down by the constitutional court. just recently there was such a law and it was promptly sent there. E

I don't get it, isn't China communist too. Has that become an in name only thing? But yah there's no silver bullets as someone likes to say, tradeoffs are something adults recognize and have to manage.