> 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.