But also, sometimes people from other countries-- I am thinking parts of Europe-- underestimate how well paid people in the US often are. They compare the averages, like the US only makes 20% more per household, why do they put up with this or that. But that comparison is for the whole country, so imagine if you were comparing all of Europe or China.
I had a friend in Spain at a similar company as mine say, how can you put up with no safety net, etc. But I look at his company and every one at my company at any level gets paid 2-5x as much. So like these are less serious issues if you are paid an extra $1-200k/ year. It doesn't explain the inaction, but I believe it is why a lot of politically influential people don't care.
Yes, in USA you get much more money, like you said 2x~5x, but then:
University is expensive as fck. Health care is expensive as fck. You have 5 days of paid sick leave per year in most companies. You have 10 days of paid holidays per year in most companies.
In contrast, in Europe: University was cheap or free. Healthcare is cheap and universal. If you are sick you are sick, either the company or the health insurance pay. You have between 20 and 30 days of paid holidays.
This is why quality of life in Europe, is so superior. And again, I am saying this as a non-European.
One thing that's hard to understand from the outside is that almost nobody actually pays those mind-blowing $60K/year tuition prices. US universities charge on a sliding scale based on the applicants' families' ability to pay.
For an extreme example: Harvard's tuition is nominally $60K per year, but for families earning $200K or less it's $0. Many prestigious universities follow similar patterns resulting in a large percentage of students paying no tuition, the middle ground of students paying some fraction, and a small number of students from wealthy families subsidizing everyone else.
For those who don't attend the prestigious universities with large endowments, average in-state state-run University tuition is under $10K, though again a large percentage of students receive some form of aids or grants to bring that number down even further.
That said, it's entirely possible or someone to go out and sign up for bad investment private university with no aid and rack up $300K of debt by graduation if they're not paying attention to anything, but it's a myth to think that everyone does this.
The average US college student graduates with around $30-40K debt depending on whether they go public or private, which isn't all that hard to pay off when our wages are already significantly higher than other countries. We're especially lucky in tech where our compensation differential relative to other countries more than makes up for the cost of university education.
That's very subjective, and I would rather have my freedoms instead of your/their liberties, thanks!
While healthcare is brought up all the time this is usually ignored. The idea of parents saving a 'college fund' for their child is something I only know from movies. It's such a strange idea that access to education would be something you either need to be able to afford or need to get a 'scholarship' for (another strange concept).
And which today must be read via internet archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20200404172130/https://likewise....
Basically explaining to Armenians at home why their relatives who moved to America don’t send better remittances back home despite their $X pay rate. Here’s why …
University isn't near as big of a problem. That's not something the blindsides you like health care expenses. Nobody is making you spend $300k on university. Got my engineering degree at a public university for ~$100k in total and had it paid off 5 years after graduation. But a $195k hospital bill is something I'd never be prepared for. Nobody chooses to go to a hospital.
Ha! I wish. It's not free. You will pay the same that Americans pay for Uni over your life many times over since tax rates in the EU are really high. Healthcare isn't exactly cheap either.
And everything you wrote is just the result of decades of prosperity that are now coming to an end. This will be a shock for many.
Is it? I pay 13.5% of my income as healthcare 'tax' for public healthcare. Overall, it is cheaper than US healthcare (as a percentage of GDP), but individually it is still a significant expense.
Many (most?) European countries have private healthcare systems. Switzerland has it and offers some of the best healthcare in Europe and in the world. Similar systems work great in many other European countries as well. The problems with American healthcare are not because it's market-based, it's because how that market is managed.
Some other countries have public universal healthcare. It can work well, but it requires a high-income country with both wealth in abundance and significant government efficiency. It only truly works well in Scandinavia so far. This is not "socialist healthcare" as some will dubiously claim, it's sort of the opposite, which is why it works.
Ok but to be fair most people in the US aren't making "extra $1-200k / year" over a person in Europe. They aren't even making $100k / year to begin with.
I'm from the eu and earn far less than these American techbros do, but far more than my American friends who work normal jobs. They work at the DMV, a supermarket, or general office work. You know, normal people. The vast majority.
Can we really say this is true about individuals in the US?
I think it's pretty clear the propaganda machine has successfully privatized health care to the great detriment of the populace and have the clamps on it.
After all, if you told everyone you had a solution where insurance rates would be cheaper, their healthcare system would cost less overall, and the health outcomes would be superior, they would all be like "sounds great". Then, when you reveal this solution is the complete destruction of the insurance "industry", insurance payments are "tax", and the health provider is the government, they would balk, scream about socialized healthcare, and say how they don't trust the government.
That's a trained response, not a real thought.
So when you're talking about how bad the American system is, you're really talking about a minority of its users. That doesn't make everything OK, but does highlight the political difficulty of enacting seemingly-popular changes.
It sure seems that way if a wealth family with top level insurance can still get bankrupt by medical bills. Examples of that are right here in comments.
If you had said the median tech worker? I might have believed you, but the median family? No way.
The US spends nearly as much in taxpayer funds as a share of GDP as other developed countries (and vastly more on a per capita basis), with even more in private costs on top of it. It is simply dishonest to say that the "wage premium enjoyed by many Americans and the lower tax level offsets the cost of insurance and copays", because neither the US wage premium nor any lower tax burden are attributable to differences in healthcare systems, but rather are in spite of the far greater burden of the US healthcare system.
OTOH, it is true that a major challenge is that people respond with this line to any proposed major structural changes to the US system.
In both systems, the upper X% can afford it. But it makes no sense to focus on that. What matters is how many don’t have access.
That number is much larger percentage-wise here than in Europe. And it will only increase the way things are going.
But the bottom 90% do badly. Society is very divided, and most people lack social mobility, they lack a voice on the national and international stage, they lack the security that either a social safety net or high pay would give them.
The UK is similar, although much less pronounced. I moved to Australia about 18 months ago and society here is much flatter, the difference between the top 10% and bottom 10% is much less. There are still problems here, it's not a utopia, but it's very noticeable how most people are struggling less, and how the top 10% of earners aren't living that different a life.
The propaganda spin on the health care system in the US has been on overdrive ever since Hillary Clinton wanted to implement some reforms in the 1990s, leading to absolutely massive resistance to any change whatsoever. Even the changes implemented by Obama, which were a HUGE improvement in access, barely made it across the legislative line, and dismantling that access to the health care system has been a huge rallying cry for one of the major political parties. I won't say which one because mentioning that fact results in people turning off their brains and downvoting.
The US healthcare has optimized for availability and higher access to the most treatment options. This does not mean evenly distributed treatment options, but that people have the chance to get access to things more quickly.
And for most people, the healthcare system works fairly great. There are exceptions, like the denial described in this thread, and they usually get lots of attention because holy hell is that a messed up situation. But the everyday care that most people get is better than adequate.
The insurance death panels already existed at the time. It didn't even happen after.
That's what made the whole thing so ridiculous in the first place.
As an individual who has lived in multiple countries in three continents, I dispute that “the care most people get is better than adequate”. Perhaps better than the world average, but certainly not better than in most first-world countries. And that’s not even counting the impact of delayed decisions and denied care, and the stress of dealing with the system overall.
And if you’re looking for more than anecdotes, there are plenty of studies that show that Americans have lower expected lifetimes than citizens of peer countries, despite much higher per-capita health care costs.
That is the definition of not worth it.
I don’t know if this a case of ideological delusion to go along with political impotence or just the usual upper middle class playing their part in obfuscating the on-the-ground realities. Structurally the latter is more likely.
What is there to disagree with? Are there any option other than introduction of universal healthcare?
Obamacare attempted to make the US healthcare system into a universal system by mandating that people purchase coverage, heavily subsidized to become affordable to every income level, in addition to massive expansion of Medicaid to those with the lowest levels of income or no income at all. Automatic enrollment in health insurance exchanges, even if people did not make their own choices on the health insurance exchanges, is what would make the US system universal health care.
Universal means that everyone has coverage, that the question to the patient is "what insurance plan are you on," rather than "do you have insurance." And making coverage universal has no connection to lowering costs. We need larger structural changes in the logistics of how care is delivered and how the money flows.
Single payer is another choice to be made, but that doesn't necessarily mean that health insurance is cheap, that all the care gets delivered that people want delivered, etc. Medicare is often cited as one direction for this, but most don't realize that private health insurance costs are partially high because they help subsidize the care of those who are covered by Medicare, because Medicare reimbursement rates are far lower than any of the private insurers have been able to negotiate.
Other routes are full decoupling of insurance from employment, full price controls that normalize Medicare and private insurance rates, which either make health care more free market or less free market depending on how you define those terms.
However every year that passes makes any of these reforms more difficult because administration of the costs and billing is getting more complex each year. ICD codes, PLA codes, all that stuff grows in complexity.
HMOs, like Kaiser, may provide a route towards greater simplicity of administration of health and costs.
But implementing any large change will require political buy-in of people, and when we have our current low-trust, high-misinformation political system there's been no way to make any political traction for changing anything. Until we regain a functional democracy or turn to full dictatorship, it seems unlikely that we will see structural changes that improve anything. Hell, we had Republican states actively trying to prevent poor people from receiving coverage from federal dollars. How can we ever come to terms with a change unless that sort of attitude no longer has traction?
I really don't understand this sentiment. It's not like the current state of the US insurance market were based on the principles of a free market. On the other hand, not coupling your health insurance to an employment contract that can be cancelled at will has nothing to do with socialism.
You can probably see where the problem comes in. Take, for example, a politician who campaigns on Medicare for All or universal healthcare. To win an election, they often need massive campaign funding—much of which comes from wealthy donors, including those in the medical or pharmaceutical industries. And once in office, they’re targeted by powerful lobbying efforts worth billions of dollars from those same industries.
In the end, the issue is that politicians can legally receive millions in donations and support from industries whose interests might directly conflict with the needs of the people they’re supposed to represent.
Ultimately though, it is known by most people irrespective of party affiliation that medical costs are out of control. One recent example of this collective understanding was when the united healthcare exec was killed. Before there was even a suspect, people generally knew why he was assassinated. Most people in the U.S. have either been directly affected by the insanity that is our healthcare system, or one of their loved ones has. Those that haven’t yet, it’s just a matter of time. It’s just so pervasive.
As your following explanation makes clear, it's actually an unrepresentative democracy.
For further reading, I recommend learning about the Citizens United vs FEC case that vastly increased the amount of money going to politicians, far over individual donation limits.
Both of which are infinitely better than what we have now, which is bastardized worst elements of both.
But because both sides will never agree we'll get neither, only the current hellscape.
The way our government is designed right now, the populace doesn't really have elected representatives. More accurately, they have a corporate bought-and-paid for stooge that managed to be more likeable in a political race than their opponent, so we don't actually have anyone representing our interests _as a country_ at the federal level.
Trust busting and multiple supply lines really need to be established in order to have a chance at restoring normalcy. Which is all but impossible as Pharma alone is the single biggest spender of advertising alone, let alone policy influence over politicians.
So why would they deny coverage? All they have to do to earn more money is keep paying for more and more healthcare.
Here's a fun story: my sister was living with an exchange student from the US. Some day the student was complaining about intense intestinal pain she's had for the past few days. My sister told her to go the hospital. The student asked her if she was crazy. My sister then had to explain her that hospitals are free and won't bancrupt her...
Also, if healthcare wasn’t tied to having a job, then the inherent laziness and moral degeneracy of people without jobs would be encouraged by letting them not be sick. (BTW, being self-employed does not count as “having a job” in this mindset.)
The French system is more predictable (because any vaguely sane healthcare system has a price for a code instead of negotiated rates, negotiated rates is the most inefficient way to run this market) & you can get cost estimates though. And in both countries, if you live in a small town in both systems, the healthcare you will receive will suck.
I know doctors probably take their jobs more seriously, but I'd be surprised if it doesn't bleed over into healthcare quality.
1. Americans are not displeased with the situation. Ironically, I think this is one place most Americans agree there is a problem. The solution is the hard part because:
2. This presumes a drop-in solution where no one loses. This is where the fight is.
3. This presumes that democracies do what is logical or beneficial for the vast majority, which is a very naive view of democracy.
https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/22/more-than-170-u-s-citize...
It is a sad state and I have almost given up on the hope that someday it will change. I m lucky enough to afford healthcare and feel for those who can't.
Up to a point, I guess? Correct me if I'm wrong.
And don't get me started on the inefficiencies and waste of time that you have to go through to fight a "claim" that is incorrect.
Almost no one gets a bill from the hospital and just pays it, and in most cases if you do it's totally financially illiterate.
Countries with “free” also healthcare ration it and don’t cover everything.
Socialized insurance is still insurance, and at least in Canada it’s the only game in town, so if you have a procedure that is denied or not available your choice is basically to go to the US and pay for it and be in the same position as an uninsured American.
It is certainly not a direct democracy where each individual policy is resolved by separate independent voting, no.
> So then insurance-based healthcare is what American people truly want?
Pretty consistently, no, but there is not any single alternative that a majority of the American people prefer recently (for a while, as far back as the 1990s, there was a clear popular majority for universal single-payer), and more importantly, it is not the only issue that factors into people’s voting decisions.
Also, this works for every people, not just American.
The patient ends up just as dead, but there is nothing to get furious about like when the doctors could fix it, but only if someone pays for it.
"In contrast to their largely negative assessments of the quality and coverage of healthcare in the U.S., broad majorities of Americans continue to rate their own healthcare’s quality and coverage positively. Currently, 71% of U.S. adults consider the quality of healthcare they receive to be excellent or good, and 65% say the same of their own coverage. There has been little deviation in these readings since 2001.
Compared with their counterparts, older adults and those with higher incomes register more positive ratings of the quality and coverage of their own healthcare."
https://news.gallup.com/poll/654044/view-healthcare-quality-...
It's not a simple democracy, no (i.e. "enact a national-level vote for every issue and majority vote wins"). It's a constitutional republic where basically you have 50 mini countries each with different weight in the house of representatives and in the electoral college and a bazillion checks and balances that make repealing existing laws and enacting new ones very difficult. I think the majority of Americans do not like the current healthcare status quo, but getting changes that everyone is on board with through the political machinery is very difficult and Americans are polarized and tend to distrust change plans proposed by the opposite party (since parties tend to propose legislation that favors their own first).
But it's worth remembering that, if it were, Trump would still have won. He won the popular vote. So, assuming that enough votes were legitimate, a majority of Americans actually do want the current health situation in the US, in fact arguably they want even less coverage.
Maybe, maybe not. But 2024 surely would have looked very different.
It's because our politicians are largely owned by our corporations and spend a ridiculous amount of money protecting their interests [1]. We almost had a public option with the original "Obamacare", but it was forced out of the bill [2].
Also, just turn on Fox News for an evening and realize it's been the number one news channel in the US for 20-something years. They've been a right wing corporate propaganda machine for a long time, all while brilliantly portraying themselves as the "underdog" fighting the mainstream media. Americans aren't very educated and take pride in their ignorance, unfortunately. [3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option
Moving our system to 340 million people + letting our corporations out of paying would put the US into an economic death spiral. US corporations would love this plan. But at 340 million... I don't see doctor visits but once every 2 years -- many would just die waiting for appointments.
I have insurance through my employer as do most Americans. And most are happy with their insurance. I can go to the doctor often same day, I can see a specialist and pay just a co-pay of between $25-50.
I had some bills but my out of pocket max is something like $5k, which I have saved up. The benefits of living in the US is that the same kind of work (engineer) pays about 3x as much here and you pay a lot less taxes (save many multiples of my out of pocket max).
So I prefer to live in a vibrant economy and take care of my own insurance.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/13/uk/england-nhs-puberty-bl...
The NHS and its bizarre political agenda is an example of what can happen when a government controls access to health care.
There's comparable examples from other places; Ireland has come a long way in getting the church out of reproductive health, but there are still problems. And of course it doesn't matter whether it's public or private, abortion care is at risk in many US states.
The UK does allow you to go private, remember.
Presidential elections are even worse because they're determined by electoral college vote rather than popular vote. Even ignoring the potential for "faithless electors", all but two states allocate the entirety of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the majority of their vote, which means that if you live in a state with a majority who reliably vote for a specific party's candidate every four years, your vote for president is effectively meaningless.
The only obvious way to fix these issues with how elections work would be to elect people who make different decisions about how to run them, which is hard to do because of the issues themselves. The system is self-reinforcing in a way that makes it extremely difficult for the average person to do anything about it, and any desire to do so gets weighed against the concerns about the policies that you might actually get to influence by voting for one of the two candidates who might actually win. At the end of the day, people who are concerned with the fundamental systemic flaws in things like elections and healthcare still likely end up picking pragmatism over principle (with the expected value of a vote for a candidate who is almost guaranteed not to win being lower than one who is might be less desirable than a third-party one but still has an actually realistic chance of winning and is preferable to the other major party candidate) or just check out of the system entirely (with people not bothering to vote at all already being a fairly common phenomenon in the US).
As the song goes:
"Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows"
Same for other kind of insurances such as issues with the house, etc..
-Currently a dictatorship
-Historically more of plutocracy
-Our history has effectively yielded the current healthcare situation especially since those who would be most vocal tend to have better coverage and thus are less invested especially since the high costs are largely obfuscated
It's the single most powerful lobbying group as a whole, and nearly every politician is bought and paid for by them. Good luck getting a majority or super majority to work against them.
Having an election day where people vote doesn't mean you live in a democracy.
Voter ID laws, voter roll purges, registration barriers, polling place accessibility, early and mail-in voting restrictions, and perhaps most importantly gerrymandering, misinformation, and intimidation all serve to reduce the power of the ballot box.
And that's before we even get to US citizens in Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, and American Samoa being unable to vote in Presidential elections at all.
This is missing the point about why people don't like the past M4A proposals: It's not about cost savings, it's about losing access to their existing health care with scarce details about what would change.
The surprising reality about American health insurance is that many people's plans cover a lot of things, procedures, and medications that would be harder for them to obtain under Medicare or even in other socialized medicine systems like the NHS.
If politicians would lay out a Medicare buy-in option and let everyone opt-in to it, it would be far more popular. The past proposals that involved shutting down the private insurance industry and handing it all over to the government is resoundingly unpopular.
No, that's just the condition for one proposal for Medicare For All.
As much as Americans complain about healthcare in general, most people don't want to give up their own health insurance once they have it. This is a known political trap that the previous M4A proposals walked right into, before crashing and burning.
When you say "Medicare for All" to people without details, they assume it means a Medicare option for all. When they start reading the details and realize they have to give up their current insurance, they don't like it.
though at the moment I'm super happy DJT does not control my healthcare.
The incentive structures that have built up around US politicians simply doesn't leave any room for it to realistically happen. Until the incentives are changed I'd vote against nearly any major government program.
Edit: its worth noting that your question for whether I'd take medicare is a separate issue from my original point. If the existence of Medicare as it is today was on the ballot, I would vote to get rid or drastically change it. If the program exists regardless of my opinions of it, my choice to take benefits from it is entirely a question of means and comparative benefits of all the options.
In the end there are more of them who want to "own the libs", or "not pay for freeloaders" than those who want to contribute to another's child surviving.
1 A very high cost of drugs due to no intervention by the government as part of free market philosophy. This means that the same insulin that costs $25 in Canada can be sold for up to $1000 per month. New introduced drugs for Alzheimer's or other diseases can cost up to 50k per year - again because no price controls.
2. Insanely high prices of services due to a captive market - example a ten minute ambulance ride can cost up from $1000 to $5000. The private ambulance companies know they can charge a high base rate because they are connected to a city or municipality via contracts. Bribes as campaign funds are popular here. E.g. a new York based ambulance operator paid 45k in campaign funds to NY's governor elect and got a contract worth one billion dollars
https://www.wkbw.com/news/state-news/report-nysdoh-awards-mu...
3. Overcharging by hospitals for medicines and services again due to a captive audience. The hospitals are free to maintain various price books and you are not told what each service will cost at the time of administration of service. lately the hospitals have been forced to open up their price books but they are so convoluted that no normal human can decipher those prices.
Thus a ten cent aspirin would cost you $25 in the hospital and a MRI can run up to 15k.
4. Very high charges for doctors due to strict control on the number of MD positions and no increase in colleges or D seats over multiple years.
https://www.aamc.org/news/press-releases/new-aamc-report-sho...
5. Insurance companies have a for profit motive and need to extract their profits from premiums paid. Thus they fight tooth and nail to deny procedures and medications and set up convoluted processes for appeals.
6. Extensive fraud on Medicare and other government run health programs especially in durable medical goods and fake billing. In fact one of sitting US senators medical care company was involved in the largest Medicare fraud fines in the US and he still holds his seat.
https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2003/June/03_civ_386....
Infact fraud billing Medicare for services not rendered is so popular that even Insurance companies do it
https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/enforcement/united-states-interven...
Combine all the above factors and you will see why the US consumer gets so little while paying so much for his healthcare.
