Making people pay for their healthcare is oppressive

No one is going to force you into taking part of society if you feel like wasting your time making everything you need yourself and dying of tbc at 30. But being part of society will net you more proft than it takes away.

Just like… in the current society?
Based on what? Your imagination? Destroying all capital investments and businesses that invest day after day to future productivity doesn't sound like the path to making society more profitable for the individuals.

...

Get rid of society. No society, no problem.

read capital. saged

I don't understand the gripe Americans have with universal healthcare.
I live in a country with a hybrid single-payer/private system and it's always the private complementary insurances who are trying to rip us off, and take months to reimburse us while it's almost instantaneous with the NHI. There is almost no competition between companies since it naturally evolved in a oligopolistic market, and I bet it's the same thing in the USA.
But then, I see on the internet proud right-wing Americans like Sam Hyde telling us they can't afford health-care, but yet oppose to the institution of any kind of public service like this from which they would be the main beneficiaries.
Is being a cuckold a second nature for you or what ?

It's because of propaganda and the insurance company lobby.

????

very funny meme

Universal healthcare ideally means no insurance companies, so they are obviously trying to protect their irrelevant jobs.

really makes you think
socialism is a mode of production, not a mode of distribution

...

yep, politics youtu.be/5UNwjB-k6aI

It is, seriously.
As a poor student, I've payed like 5€ a year to get access to the public health-care. Workers obviously pay more, but it's nothing compared to all the advantages you get. The most common stuff is reimbursed at like 80%.
The cheapest complementary I can get, which reimburses almost nothing more than the public insurance, is like 150€ per year. The more useful insurances are like 250€ or 400€. And keep in mind that I'm a student. It's much more expensive for workers.
You are one of the richest nation on Earth. You have the potential to be comfy when it comes to health-care, and not pay $1000 to go to the ER. Hell, the only one I went to the ER, I've paid like 15€ from my own pockets, without a complementary.
I don't understand how you can think your system is good and just, and see at the same time how you are getting ripped-off compared to every other first-world country on the planet.

...

Government health care means putting a private sector entrepreneur as a monarch in the public system. The same way government currency and central bank means hiring the key people in the biggest banks to have full power over the banking system.

Turns out these people capable of financing the health care of an entire country don't fall from the sky, turns out it's just turning a private company into an official monarchy for the country.

You are also forgetting the subsidies you pay in the form of 30% income tax and that if you decide not to pay those you are considered an enemy of society and go to jail.

reddit REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

.
The last time I looked, you pay almost as much taxes as us.
Below 10k, we don't pay anything. (10% in the US)
Between 10k and 27k, we pay 14%. (15% in the US)
Between 27k and 70k, 30%. (15 or 25% in the US)
Between 70k and 152k, 40% (25 or 30% in the US)
Above that, 45%. (40% at most)

First of all, the tax rate is more progressive. But the main thing is that we get definitely more than you from what we give.

If you were to put 10% of what you make in very safe fixed income titles every year of your life, you would be able to afford the best health care on the planet for you, your wife, your and your children, without the government forcing you to pay based on the threat of incarceration.

Oh yeah, let's also not forget the tariffs and taxes you pay indirectly in the form of higher prices; because otherwise it would be like saying North Korea is a taxless a libertarian utopia.

>>>/reddit/

oh no, how terrible that sounds user

Over half the US makes less than 60k btw

30k actually

Netherlands:
130 euro a month health insurance
320 euro own risk if you go to a doctor or need medication, after that most things are covered.
240 euro own contribution if it's not within the policy.
18 year olds and older are all MANDATORY insured.

Don't pay for 6 months. Get opened a bank account in your name and be insured with a policy roughly 130% more expensive. This account will go into debt forever. The bank will also charge 14% interest on the debt every 3 months to that same account.

You can not declare bankruptcy on this debt.

Don't pay after 1 year, you'll be fined by 5000 euro's.

The fine gets routed to the State Collection bureau. After not paying the FULL fine, you'll be arrested and held hostage until you pay or until you sit out the money which will be 110 euro a day will take you 45~ days to remove the fine. The fine will be given again within 30 days after you leave prison if you still don't pay, the process repeats. Meanwhile every month the debt of the monthly insurance rate stacks up.

Socialism is cancer.

taxes still aren't socialism

but they really aren't that bad either, they're the price we pay for civilisation

Reddit is cancer and that's where you belong. Take your spacing and fuck off back there.

Not a argument.

No, that's not how it works.

When we work, a part of our salary is put into a common fund for our public health-care. It's 0.75%, which is almost nothing.
Our employers need to give 13% of the amount of our salary though, but considering they are the ones who get most of the economic value we create as workers, and that we would probably never get that money in our pockets if they weren't forced to pay for this, I don't feel bad about them at all. You could argue this percentage could be more progressive for small-shop owners and the likes, but whatever, that's the way it is.

The people who manage this fund don't have any invective to make profit with it for some shareholders, unlike a private company. Hence, we are less likely to get scammed.

If there isn't enough money to reimburse everyone, some of taxes we pay are allocated to this fund. It's sadly the case where I live, but not in Germany for example, where their fund have a net positive balance.

You pay 1/4 for 60 years, but your money go to your overinflated military budget instead of going back to the pockets of the taxpayers in the form of health-care.

Are you kidding me ? The American aversion for public services that spread in Europe like a virus since the Cold War is what is causing this.
Our public hospitals, outside of ERs, have lasting queues, that's true, but we get a good service. You won't believe this, but the doctors working in the public sector are generally better than the ones in the private sector if you aren't a richfag, because they don't get paid more, whenever they scam you or not.

If you want, you can go to see a clinic or private clinicians. You have the choice. It will be more expensive, and you get either a better service, or a poor overpriced one. But one thing, though, is that most private insurances companies don't reimburse the extra fees, like the public health-care. So I don't see how a totally privatized health-care would fix this. It certainly won't.

Oh shut the fuck up, you pay tariffs too if you order something from China.
Stop trying to paint the USA as a libertarian paradise, it isn't if you aren't part of the Silicon Valley or Wall Street elite, like here.

...

...

Just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about.

What the fuck are you yammering about, OP? Is this a shitpost or a poor attempt at dialogue?

not a argument.

Why does a socialist country favor privatization of healthcare. Our taxes used to include health care. When they privatized health care in 2006, our taxes did not lower. Explain why this socialist shithole is not operating in favor of the people? Might it have something to do with the fact they ran out of others people money to spend? :p

Do workers collectively own the tools at their workplace, the product of their work, and exert a democratic control over what they will do with all of this stuff in the Netherlands ? No they don't.
The "socialism" you take about is just the welfare system, which is basically a band-aid invented by capitalists to pacify proles and it isn't necessarily a bad thing, I like muh single-payer health-care.

Which country are you talking about?

...

All he's been doing this entire thread is post bad memes.
For shame, OP. For shame.

As I said in , The German government hasn't run out of taxes to fund their health-care system the last time I've looked, they actually have more than what they spend.
And the people managing their common fund can decide to lower the price of the contributions for the subsequent years more easily than a private company, because they have no shareholders to please.

Seems you are talking about nationalization of healthcare. This system removes allot of the middle men but increases the bloat and inefficiency of the government. I'm in favor of human freedom, the right to choose to be insured. I'm not in favor of huge government whatsoever and it's clearly visible in my country of 17 million people of which 1 million are direct government employees. This sort of system would also invite in massive fraud from the private sector such as hospitals and other contractors.

Why stop there then, why not just nationalize the hospitals as well and merely contract doctors to allow them to set up their practice within?

You say means of production, but this argument only occurred during the heavy industrialization. Now, due to automation, robotization and it's subsequent polarization of production efficiency, this argument doesn't work as there simply isn't enough supply in jobs for all people? How would under communism this problem be solved? Would you not also require some form of 'welfare'?

I understand that Capitalist cancers want to keep the people who no longer sated to prevent uprisings. But they are living a subsistence life which in this system isn't rewarding neither mentally nor physically.

I'm not OP, i'm curious what u communists think about this fucked up system, OP's thread was high in velocity and drew my attention, i'm sick and tired of the health care system in my country.

Okay, so from what I gathered, the Dutch system is pretty weird : only serious stuff and specialized things like elderly care are covered by a national fund, but the government also give money to private insurance companies for risk equalization and you are forced to deal them, if I understood correctly ?
Even though Wikipedia says your system supposedly works well compared to a lot of other systems, it sounds inefficient to give money to private companies, and I can understand why you wouldn't want to pay an insurance when you are young and healthy.

Yeah, I was describing the French system, which is a single-payer national-funded system with private complementary insurances you can have if you want to.

Not necessarily. Our national fund for health-care is supposed to be independent from the government budget.
In practice, they use taxes to counter the deficits, which isn't good, but I think it's a good system if the fund manages to stay separated as much as possible from the rest.

I can understand that, but when I see the American system, which was until very recently only managed by private companies, I think our mostly public system is way better.

It happens very rarely, if at all, from what I've heard. I don't know how they check for fraud, but they seem to have an efficient thing going on for this.

We have both public and private hospitals. We also have independent doctors who practice government-fixed prices, and some who are more expensive and less reimbursed by the national fund.
You have a choice, but at the same time, everyone can have access to good care, unlike in a system almost totally controlled by private companies like in the US.
One of the only problem of the public hospitals is that there are not enough doctors for everyone outside of emergencies, but the quality of care is better than with a lot of private doctors who got in the health business only for profit.

usa style single payer is gay shit tbh

go full NHS or don't bother

USA doesn't even have single payer. Medicare is only for the elderly and disabled, everyone else is stuck with private insurance.

Do you even risk pool?

Did you know that doctors must treat all patients regardless of their ability to pay already? Hospitals are contantly absorbing the cost of people who cannot pay and that cost is going to keep going up. Who are you to say you cannot share """""""""""""""""""""""your""""""""""""""""""""""""" hospital or doctor.

Profit motive is why we don't cure shit, instead only manage symptoms with drugs and treatment the rest of your life.

At this point in time the NHS is a terrible example of single-payer healthcare.

It has gotten so gutted and inefficient with no opportunity to even try and reform it between tories who want to privatize everything and liberals who think the NHS is the best on the planet and needs no improvement.

Totally comrade. There's no profit in manufacturing cures for billions of people, being a very prestigious and recognizable person in the medical community.

If only we had a society that prohibits capital investments and make it impossible for people to profit off their innovations and better services, it would surely make us cure all sorts of diseases.

Yeah, but the left generally seem to propose single payer + private companies instead of some degree of nationalisation.

even in the present degraded state, it's still up there. (and on basic funding/use model, i've yet to see anything better in the world.)
furthermore each attempt at "reform" just fucks the thing up more. market-stalinism will always result in cuts to doctors/nurses/staff who actually do shit to impose more layers of staff who exist only to play statistical games for pointless league tables (it's the same in higher education.)

"efficiency" has been the worst meme of neoliberalism.

Who's a recent inventor of a cure or vaccine that you can name without Googling?

Cuba recently ended all HIV mother-to-child transmissions.

Efficiency when it comes to healthcare is a very real concern. NHS waiting lists for surgery are absolutely ridiculous despite the fact that it's one of the biggest employers on the planet and one of the main problems is exactly what you're identifying. It's bloated by useless staff that are only there for statistical dick-measuring.

Though I think before reforming the NHS, we could also come a long way in cleaning it up by taking the same crackdown on alcohol that some places do on other drugs. That it's illegal to do it public and heavily taxed. British alcoholism is a tumor on the healthcare system and we'd be wise to stop enabling it.

I don't want to stray too far from the discussion about health-care, but I think a socialist mode of organization would be better at dealing with this than a capitalist one where property tend to be held by a only small minority of people, and need either welfare or the annihilation of the poorest.
Let's take a communal organization for example, which is the one I know the most about. If everyone in a commune own the tools (including robots) to make whatever they want as well as the product of their labor, and decide what they do with it democratically, there is no need for welfare. Everyone could get food and goods from a public depository according to their needs.
There are issues needed to be addressed (e.g. "How to organize inter-commune exchanges ?"), and leftists/anarchists don't all agree on the way to have socialism/communism. Open up another thread if you are curious.

That's one of the most terrible thing about the contemporary capitalist system IMO.
I'm currently a NEET since I dropped out of uni a few months ago and it's driving me slowly crazy.
I would actually love to work on something meaningful, let's say, 20 hours a week, sometimes manual work, sometimes computer programming for example, and learn, I don't know, philosophy and signal processing at the university during my free time. That would be awesome.
But in this system, we are supposed to spend 70% of our precious lifetime at work. Even if the productive gains made by automation and the sophisticated tools we create, as a species, to ensure our survival could dramatically lessen the amount of work we have to do to all be comfortable, the ideology in power want to us to create more and more "economic growth" to satisfy… who or what exactly ?
A lot of jobs nowadays are useless and produce nothing of tangible values. Some are straight up harmful. We could do without them.
And instead of having to either spend most of your time at your workplace doing a job you hate, or doing nothing except being depressed all day long, we could share the effort. Free time feels good after you did something useful for the society, but also don't feel exhausted.

The problem is that any reform (which is what pointing out flaws invariably leads to being taken as an argument for, thanks Rhetoric!) will just take you further down the route of screwing things up. It shouldn't, but it'll happen to governments of both colours. (Hence why I'm trapped to some degree by the essentially reactionary position of "Stop fucking with it", perhaps with a limited degree of "can we go back to the pre-1988 way of doing things?")

Can't say I'm keen on any booze crackdown tbh. Privatise the NHS, but don't take away the one respite from life on this miserable earth, that elixir loved by everyone from the homeless to the prime minister. Bully fat people, children and the elderly instead. I'm not any of those. I don't actually drink often, it's been months, and it has seriously diminishing returns in mitigating misery and cynicism but that's neither here nor there.

A corporation is not a person. The only investments are in things that yield the most profit. What is most profitable is gouging people for medication that keeps them alive and manages symptoms for the rest of their lives.

Oh god how horrible, they just prevented the birth of new lifelong customers.

But that's just not true though. It's entirely possible to reform something without ruining it. In fact if we didn't reform the healthcare system to begin with there would be no NHS. And indeed a "good" reform of the NHS would be more like a restoration to how it originally was to rectify all the reforms that have fucked it up. And maybe go further by expanding covered dentistry to adults and generally investing more into it rather than taking away from it.

I don't think we should ban booze. I think we should ban drinking in public. If you want to have a few drinks with your friends in your own house then more power to you. But the legions of drunks out in the streets every weekend costs the government more money than actually useful things like universities.

Though now that you mention it obesity is another thing we need to take a serious look at. But of course porkies make mad dollar off alcohol and shitty food so we probably never will.

As someone who is an alcoholic, I don't think it's the answer.
Recently, I went to see an association for my addiction, and I only got a short half-assed lecture on cognitive behavioral techniques to stop and nothing else. They told me they screen documentaries about addictions every week with other people who have problems like me, but that's it.
The psychologist I've met told me at the end of the meeting he wasn't sure if the association is still going to have enough funding next year to continue their activities, and I think that's why seeing them didn't do much for me.

If there aren't good structures to help addicted people, and also if their lives stay shitty in general, they won't stop. Heavy taxation will just make the black market grow. Prohibition miserably failed in the USA.

In theory. In practice, under the present neoliberal orthodoxy, you will ruin it. (This is tepidly hinted at by the fact I'd be amenable to "restoring" - well, actually, i said "go back" but the same thing - but not "reforming", though this is partially because going back sounds more overtly unrealistic.)

Since I'm fond of cheap vodka anyway: Nationalized alcohol sector when?

maak jezelf van kant aub

Yeah, because all pharmaceutical companies, all pharmaceutical researchers, are conspiring to gauge new treatments and cures for horrible diseases so they can earn more profit. Literally, the entire planet earth of medical research is conspiring to gauge the research for treatments, even thought finding a single slightly more efficient treatment would earn to the individual facility a lot of money.

Of course, they also make sure that none of the literally millions of people involved in scientific research speak out against their scheme.

This totally isn't a silly view of the world a 14yo would have.

It doesn't take a conspiracy for every company to come to the same conclusion: More money will be earned sending our guys to research something else.

dit is puur, onverdund kapitalisme, kankerlijer

Only scientific knowledge is not monopolize by a single company.
Only scientific research is not owned by a single company and being left behind in scientific research and better treatments is not profitable. Only companies earn a lot of money by manufacturing and patenting new and more effective treatments.

val dood aub

Read Steve Keen's book and realize it doesn't matter.
digamo.free.fr/keen2011.pdf

Kill yourself

...

Have you ever heard of planned obsolescence ? It's often not interesting for company to build a very durable product. If your washing machine break every 4 years, you will have to buy another one regularly. If every company selling washing machine do the same on a market, whenever it's only a town or a whole country, everyone get their share.
If a pharmaceutical company sell a medication that manages the symptoms of a ailment, they have regular consumers. If they cure them, they have one-off consumers.
Of course, there isn't a giant Illuminati conspiracy hiding from us the cure for cancer. But if a bunch of companies can conspire together for together on a market without an outsider disturbing their plans, whenever it's a new company bringing something on the table or an external authority, it's in their best interest to do so. And I doubt the pharma industry is immune to this.

How about this, if you think there's an industry making a product that is too cheap, how about you open a business, make higher quality products, and explain to your consumer while your products are worth the extra cash?

Oh wait, capitalism is oppressive, and everyone is being brainwashed to hurt themselves, and the only thing that we can do to stop that is to completely fucking destroy our societies. Individual freedom is slavery and destruction is construction.

you fucked up dude

there is no individualism under capitalism, retard

people like you are why leaving feudalism was a mistake.

Productive scientists get the most funding, it does not matter how sound the science the use as long they produce results consistently. The only way anything gets done now is if finance capital likes it. We cannot rely on the efforts of well meaning people, we must change the system to stop enabling and encouraging greed. Why do you see so many ads for erectile dysfunction medication? Because that is extremely profitable, it is tough to get men to go to the doctor, but guys are motivated by their dicks. I don't see Pfizer actually curing anything worthwhile any time soon.

Not everyone have rich parents who can lend money to start a business, or at least provides a good guarantee for a bank loan.
First of all, why the companies don't make the best products from the start if that's the whole point of capitalist markets ? If they don't end up doing this naturally, the argument that this is the most efficient organzation is flawed, don't you think so ?
Moreover, things like patents, intellectual property, and the natural tendency of capitalism to create markets controlled by oligopolies stifle competition.

Not an argument.

why aren't you doing it yet user?
smartphones are still shit so you must be a lazy underachiever.
Gimme a few weeks and apple will be dead meat.

communism should strive to reduce the time spent working and the people that need to work. In a utopian society, all effort would go to making our lives better and more free.

off-topic sage

What's more profitable, treatment or cure?

your theoretical bullshit is beautiful, tell me, why isn't that happening in reality?

Universal Healthcare isn't Obamacare. Also, in a moneless society you wouldn't even pay taxes you stupid nigger, do you even realize that in an ancap or Right Libertarian society afordable healthcare would be basically nonexistent? Impolite sage.

Hilarious.

If neither you, nor nobody in society came up with a solution, why the fuck do you think an authoritarian commie society would actually magically make a better product? How do you not realize how delusional you are?

Something tells me the quality of smartpohones is not something people in North Korea are worried about.
KEK

SOMEONE LIFT ME FROM THIS SOCIALIST HELL

Pick one and one only

ObamaCare is shit, your shitty privatized system is shit too.

What are you whining here for anyway? /yourguy/ just won his third term, soon all the turks will be fleeing from starvation and cold like the Russians fled Estonia, only the true job creators will be rightfully sheltered.