No, it isn’t chump change for some unfortunate society members. However, I doubt that many goes bankrupt from a claim of 135$/year. And at least in Socialist Scandinavia, there’s a social safety net to protect those who would go bankrupt due to a 135$/year bill
Honestly (and sadly) I think its our culture. I’ve got friends that work in the government sector and this is representative of conversations I’ve had with a few too many of them.
Me: So you like your job?
Friend: Not really but it pays the bills.
Me: Why are you in it if you don’t like it?
Friend: Cause its virtually impossible to get fired and if I work 20 years I get full salary and medical for the next 60.
Me: Well that sounds like a good deal, why does it suck so bad?
Friend: Cause no one does anything .. they just sit around waiting for someone else to do it.
We have a culture that’s virtually void of personal accountability and self reliance and it seems to have gotten worse in the last few years.
Hi all
Just quickly ducking into the thread to note that I’ve had a shit ton of real world work come down on me suddenly, I’ll be able to participate more tomorrow, and will address all the posts that have come up in the meantime, thank you for posting!
I wouldn’t call myself well off. But, $135 for a whole year, compared to what we pay now for health care in this country? Yeah, it’s chump change. For many people that is less than the cost of one month’s health insurance premium, without any actual care delivered. For me personally, as a single young person with employer-sponsored health insurance, it’s still less than two months’ premiums.
I have (non-urgent) medical care that I need that I’ve been putting off for a long time because I can’t really afford it. (And I have health insurance – what the hell good is it doing me?) I would kill to be able to pay $135 for it.
You are forgetting that this is on top of considerably higher taxes. They pay in Sweden, just not through the same methods.
Anyway, the point was simply that unlike socialist UK 
in Scandinavian countries (well, at least Sweden) there is still paying at the GP/hospital/whatever for services, so all this talk of only homogeneous societies being able to pull it off is a bit silly. The considerably less homogeneous UK is a much more socialised system than Sweden’s so it is probably best that you compare to that instead.
Or we could just distract ourselves from the issue by making silly claims about 135 USD being “chump change”. Your call.
But they will be managing it.
I usually agree with everything you say, amanset, but I really think you’re exaggerating the poverty caused by the tax burden of the Scandinavians. We’re talking about someone finding it difficult to come up with about £7 per month, if they get sick.
That’s just over one pint of beer in Sweden. Per month. Surely even someone on the dole can scrape that together on a monthly basis if it’s about their health?
Therefore a) it really is chump change in the developed world, and b) it’s particularly chump change when you’re talking to Americans about health costs.
Are there any apples to apples example of this where government stepped in to manage a an entire private sector industry and made it more efficient?
Please clarify there’s “not much of a debate that government can provide several services more efficiently than private industry”, because it is in fact widely debated and always has been.
The NHS in the UK is more efficient than the US private healthcare system.
That’s not apples to apples, I clearly meant inside the US.
I wasn’t clear to me either, and I suspect there won’t be any examples which really fit.
You ‘clearly’ meant nothing of the sort. Anyway, it’s impossible to compare a real issue to a hypothetical.
The impression I get from US conservatives in threads like these is that the US government is far more incompetent than governments in the rest of the developed world. If this is truly so, I strongly suggest they start far fewer wars.
We’re still getting away from the point that I was making, that the homogeneous population argument was bollocks because the far less homogeneous society of the UK has an even more socialist form of universal healthcare and so the comparison should have been made to that.
Totally agree with you (as usual). I was just commenting on the “chump change” tangent.
deleted…
I thought so too, but you kept distinguishing the NHS from single payer systems, which it is.
The US health bureaucracy is so entrenched that any change will be massively disruptive, though I agree it would be easier if providers are left as private entities.
I don’t understand why the governments of every other country in the developed world don’t count. Nonetheless, 3% of Medicare spending is administrative costs; private insurers spend about 20% of their budgets on administration.
Do you have a CBO cite or reliable analysis you would share with me?
(I’d like to just see the context of that claim, and where it came from that’s all. Because I read differently about hidden and shared costs among other things)
The KFF paper I linked to is a reliable analysis. However, you can read a relevant CBO paper yourself right here.
Yeah; i see your point. And as tangents go, it was a crappy one. Consider it dropped.