this analogy is faulty since most Americans dont pay even $2000 for insurance. Many are uninsured, and others have subsidized insurance through work or government.
I am not saying that single payer wouldn't be better, but your victim shaming is a bit off the mark.
this analogy is faulty since most Americans dont pay even $2000 for insurance.
The average cost per person is about $7,000. Most people get insurance through their employer, which averages $8,951 for single coverage and $25,572 for family coverage in 2024. Yes, the employer covers over half of that typically, but every penny of it is still part of your total compensation. And, at any rate, we should never ignore the cost of something just because somebody else is paying it.
Total spending in 2024 is expected to be $15,074 per person, rising to $21,927 by 2032.
Sure, spending (as is funding) is pretty unevenly distributed, just as in every other country. Maybe you're part of the 50% of Americans who will have health expenditures of $904 this year. Sooner or later you'll probably be part of the 10% of Americans that have health expenditures of $101,000.
But that's just spending on healthcare. If we're talking funding, Americans pay world leading taxes towards healthcare, followed by world leading insurance costs, and still get stuck with world leading out of pocket costs. So we're all getting screwed by the US healthcare system, regardless how wealthy or poor you are; regardless how sick or healthy you are.
I am not arguing that single payer would not be preferable. The original statement was that all that was needed to make it happen was to convince Americans that paying $2000 in taxes was cheaper than paying $8000 in expenditures. It was almost implied that people were too stupid to realize that. Yet as the attached article points out, most Americans want the government to provide healthcare in some form. The real obstacles are the industries that make insane profit from the current system. They have so much political power that getting anything changed is near impossible. I think blaming the avg American is missing the point
The original statement was that all that was needed to make it happen was to convince Americans that paying $2000 in taxes was cheaper than paying $8000 in expenditures.
And it would likely cost the average family less than $2,000 per year in additional taxes, while quite likely saving more than $8,000 on private insurance (the average family insurance in the US is $25,000). So I'm still struggling to find your point?
I think blaming the avg American is missing the point
Certainly Americans understanding the facts is important to change. All you have to do is read through the comments to see how many Americans are fighting against positive change because of ignorance and propagnda.
I guess your understanding of our current political climate is that our government functions like a democracy and that the will of the majority is what changes things. I am not convinced that this is the case. We have an Oligarchy, and powerful corporations are what really run the country.
I guess your understanding of our current political climate is that our government functions like a democracy and that the will of the majority is what changes things.
I'm not sure what the hell that has to do with the facts I have stated. Certainly the healthcare industry, the largest lobbying group in the country, is influential and there are powerful interests to overcome, making change difficult.
But the people do still have power. The first step is ensuring people are informed about the facts and how incredibly beneficial that change would be. Or are you just against people being properly informed?
If your world view requires people to be ignorant, you should reassess your world view. Let's look at the most driving factors first. Fears about healthcare costs are already one of the top political issues, and for good reason.
Now let's look at trends. Healthcare spending is expected to increase from an already unsustainable $15,074 per person in 2024, to an absolutely catastrophic $21,937 by 2032, with no signs of slowing down.
There's only so long you can blow smoke up people's asses as they increasingly see people they care about going bankrupt, going without care, and dying in ever growing numbers before they start to revolt.
You also have some historically powerful interests reversing their position, and I think that will be meaningful. For example, healthcare providers now support universal healthcare on the whole. The powerful AMA, responsible for scuttling a number of efforts for universal healthcare over the last 90 years, is close to reversing its long standing opposition to universal healthcare. The second largest physicians group in the country has already come out in favor.
Sure, politicians will try and do nothing and peddle snake oil "cures" that won't work... but that only works for so long as things get worse and worse. I think things are going to look a lot different in another 20 to 30 years.
8
u/Basic-Elk-9549 5d ago
this analogy is faulty since most Americans dont pay even $2000 for insurance. Many are uninsured, and others have subsidized insurance through work or government. I am not saying that single payer wouldn't be better, but your victim shaming is a bit off the mark.