Americans: It's all that gosh-darn SOCIALISM that's causing this mess! Because socialism is when all the rich fat cats at the top keep all the earnings for themselves. Fucking dirtbag woke socialists!
And no lessons were learned that day.
Even Mangione has proved undoubtedly that he doesn't entirely understand the very issue that radicalized him. (If he isn't just a patsy, of course)
I think he's just kinda an ordinary person who grew up privileged. He has fairly standard techbro style libertarian beliefs, but he also has criticisms of some of the influencers he watches, and didn't seem to like Peterson very much. He also seems to be an environmentalist, and I think he seemed to have become more anti-corporation based on the manifesto released (obviously assuming he did it).
Him being a privileged but ordinary guy who still got radicalized reflects a lot more strongly on the plight of everyone who isn't one of the owner class. It doesn't matter that he was relatively wealthy, he still wasn't one of them.
What information has come out that makes you say the last paragraph? I'm not doubting it's validity in the slightest (I don't think this guy is exactly an infallible source of wisdom), just haven't seen a lot directly from him that would flesh his views out that much.
He was pretty pro-Musk and pro-Peter Thiel and certainly wasn't a paragon of leftist thought. While being decently educated and well traveled, he seemed to have a lot of faith in technolibertarian ideals.
I'd say that's clear from his Twitter and Reddit histories. It doesn't mean he's a frothing-at-the-mouth MAGA nut, but it also doesn't mean he's a dyed-in-the-wool leftist who understands the issues.
Further, like most people, he only became radicalized when a serious injury impacted his own life. It didn't make him question the whole system of capitalism, just healthcare.
And all that's fine and not meant to be an indictment one way or another about the guy, but more it's meant to point out that like most Americans, he's seemingly a little confused about larger issues. Which also makes sense since he's only 26, learning about it all takes time.
Finally, I'm still not 100% convinced a bunch of this is just contrived police bullshit to pin it on a patsy, and that's why his motives seem confused. Although I wouldn't be surprised if he's just lacking education and confused, like most Americans.
I know it's probably a bit exaggerated on purpose but also in European countries it's definitely not zero. We are in a significantly better situation than the US, that's fot sure. Our problems aren't remotely comparable. But also here, it can happen that certain treatments aren't covered, also here there are (few) people without health insurance and also here people can lose their job or never find a job in the first place due to illness related issues or disabilities.
As said, much better but also definitely not 0.
There's also the issue of waiting times - you might need care somewhat urgently, but need to either wait for multiple months or pay (or hope that when the issue becomes more immediately life-threatening they can handle it in time). Public healthcare isn't perfect, and at least in many places still needs a lot of work.
I always dislike this take because it pretends the US doesn't have this exact issue. I've known people with less than ideal insurance who had very few doctors to pick from in-network and would take months to get an appointment.
Long wait times still happens in the US. Just like it can happen in public healthcare.
Pedant rant:
I take issue with 'needs a lot of work', though it is common phrasing. It promotes the false idea that 'business is more efficient' by making it sound like the public administrators are too dumb to know how to do their job.
The real issue, in most jurisdictions, is that it needs more and stable funding, and less political interference.
Wait times are a factor of the number of doctors though. Like in the UK private health insurance may let you skip the queue, but that's only because there's relatively few people capable or willing to take up the private slots. If everyone had health insurance then the "faster" pathway no longer exists (or more likely people who're willing to pay more skip the queue).
Waiting times are atrocious here in the U.S. The earliest in-person appointment that I can get with my GP is about 6 months out. Non-urgent surgeries are sometimes take close to a year. A friend recently had to keep a bladder drain in after surgery for an extra week because there were no doctors who could do the 5-minute removal available.
Anybody who says that long wait times are unique to public health systems is lying.
The good thing is that it creates a great competition for the privates. I have a very good insurance for 1K a year. No extra payments. Can go as much as I want. Many locations included. For "small" or "quick", I go to the private one. Saves me time and reduces waiting times for public.
I've lived in a couple of countries in Europe and some have Universal Healthcare systems (such as the UK and Portugal) but others such as The Netherlands and Germany have Mixed Systems with Health Insurance but highly regulated and were some people can get Health Insurance from the state.
You're not going to go bankrupt from the treatment or get treatment denied in countries with UHC.
However if you lose your job or never find a job in the first place due to illness related issues or disabilities you'll almost certainly end up on benefits which again can be better or worse depending in the country.
I would say things have been getting worse all over Europe (personally I think it's exactly because there's been too much copying of shit from the US), especially when it comes to the level of benefits for poor people being sufficient (the house prices bubbles all over the place and the lack of building of social housing have made this a massive problem in most countries), but that's not the same as simply going bankrupt from medical bills because you've had an accident, ended up in an emergency ward and got a life saving surgery.
Damn. Never thought things would be better in Brazil.
So, no one in those countries became homeless and bankrupt because of an illness and lost their job? I am asking genuinely because I wouldn't know.
This is hyperbole. Healthcare cost might be covered, but there are a lot more expenses with being sick. Social support and housing support in the UK is laughable. Good luck if you cant work because of disability. The hospital will keep you alive.....and then discharge you to the street.
Still better than America though.
No, it’s an exaggaration. According to StreetSmart Australia 14% of people became homeless due to becoming unemployed suddenly
With that said we do have MUCH better social welfare programs here in Australia than the US, though there is always more that could be done
When my dad was diagnosed with late stage prostate cancer they assembled a team for him, got him all the tests and scans and began treatment essentially immediately. Uncle with leukaemia was basically the same experience. He had a bone marrow transplant in addition to all the regular chemo stuff. Total bill came to $0 but they do gouge you for parking. Need a joint replacement? You're gonna have to wait, but for life and death you get the treatment you need pretty quick
You have to wait in the US too, but we pretend our times are better.
Danish healthcare is covered but good luck getting any treatment
In Japan if you work full time for a larger employer, you pay into "shakai hoken" (societal insurance) this pays you like a third of your salary if you get injured and have to refrain from work for awhile. (This is at least partially paid for by your company because you can only legally be fired in Japan if the company proves beyond a reasonable doubt you were either belligerent or the company couldn't survive without you)
Americans: ... OH YEAH! .... now lets count how many Aircraft Carriers each country has!! ... U! ... S! ... A! ......... U! ... S! ... A! ........ U! ... S! ... A! ..... pulls a muscle from over exerting themselves, has to go to the hospital and pay for treatment
They want to have the freedom to be able to pay for treatment
It's a free country ... as long as you can afford it
.... and also ...
“That's why they call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.” - George Carlin
I know it would be covenient to accept this meme as true, but it very much isn’t.
Just like insurance companies in the US don’t cover everything you need, sometimes even lifesaving treatment, the same (though less extreme) happens in nearly all public health systems.
I say this as someone who has gone through this and become tubefed and deaf as a result.
I don't think there is a public health system when you are just expected to fork over half a million for an operation. Those insane healthcare prices are uniquely US phenomenon
There are public health systems that just won’t offer that operation. Or you’ll have a 1.5 year waiting list. So in the end, unless you’re rich and pay for private insurance, it comes out as the same.
(Edit: since someone thought my take is because I’m american and don’t understand. I’m european, have lived most my life in europe, this is from lived experience)
Having lived in two countries with universal healthcare, that meme is absolutelly true and you're the one bullshitting.
The most "extreme" it can get in such systems is that they won't pay for very expensive treatments (i.e. the kind of stuff that costs a million dollars per shot) if a person can keep going with cheaper ones even if they're not as good.
Even then, sometimes they will if it's actually worth it (as in: for something that's a cure, not for something that just keeps the patiet going and is only 10% better than the next best option whilst costing 1000x more).
That's "your quality of life won't be as good if you have a chronic disease that makes your life miserable and the best treatment in the market is insanelly expensive because they'll only pay for a not as expensive one", not "death panels".
People in those countries absolutelly aren't going bankrupt due to being denied life-saving treatment and having to pay for it from their own pocket.
As for any complains you might have heard from people in countries with universal healthcare, them complaining about it is like people in Scandinavia complaining about public services: relative to what they have there are bad parts, which is something altogether different than it being bad relative to the World and when it comes the healthcare the US is 3rd World when it comes to results delivered relative to the amount spent in it.
PS: For avoidance of confusion, by Universal Healthcare I mean countries were the State provides the Healthcare and you get it without paying, not the so-called "Mixed Systems" that also exist in Europe (for example in Germany and The Netherlands) and which have Mandatory Healthcare Insurance for all residents, though much more regulated than in the US and with a Public Provider for the less well off. Mixed Systems do have some of the problems of the US System and massivelly depend on the strength of local regulations and the seriousness of the Regulator to not decay into the same kind of situation as the US since the Private Insurance Companies there have the very same natural tendency to shaft their clients as the ones in the US and only the local regulations stop them.
Sorry then.
I guess me living my entire life in a system with universal healthcare, being denied treatments that could have prevented me going deaf and needing a feeding tube is all in my imagination.
The treatments for these werent extreme. It was a fairly simple drug therapy that costs around 5’000 Euro per year and is sold in my country.
It just isn’t on the list of drugs covered by public health insurance. As I’m surviving on 12k per year disability benefits, I could not afford the treatment.
But just because it never impacted you you assume my experience doesn’t exist, because you have the privilege that the system never didn’t work for you, so you assume it works for everyone.
People in those countries absolutelly aren't going bankrupt due to being denied life-saving treatment and having to pay for it from their own pocket.
The meme has an "or" in it though. About 20% of Canadian bankruptcy is due to health and illness. Here in Canada the maximum disability is ~1500cad a month, which might pay your rent if you live in a really really cheap area. Part of the reason it's bad like that is because it is so often compared to America, and often greatly exaggerated like in this meme.
Neither this meme nor your own lived experiences are good representations of what the average American struggles with in the healthcare system. Speaking as someone who lost a house and almost everything I owned due to medical issues in my family.
I mean there's definitely people who go bankrupt due to not being able to work due to illness. If you're a private entrepreneur (or what's the correct term E; self-employed was what I meant) for example then that stuff can take you down easily.
Yes, that's true. Many countries have subsidies, but especially if it's a significant one who needs constant care, they can't cover everything.
Still, likely a rounding error compared with the US if we consider those who become unable to work due to treatable conditions they can't afford (and their insurance delays, denies and defends)
It's also that if you get sick at the wrong time, as a self-employed person, that alone can take you down and cause a bankruptcy. Subsidies won't help there if the work just isn't getting done or you miss out on work contracts.
I mean there's definitely people who go bankrupt due to not being able to work due to illness
That has nothing to do with the cost of healthcare.
The meme says "or illness related work loss".
Maybe meme should've specified personal bankruptcy
If you're self-employed entrepreneur then it'd be a personal bankruptcy most of the time in Finland. Having an LLC or such thing for such use isn't common.
It's almost like .. universal healthcare would make our economy stronger and the insurance companies are the leaches..
Some people don't want universal health care because they don't want their taxes going towards other people's health care. What they seem to fail to understand is that the exact same thing happens with private health insurance, and some of the money goes towards the insurance company's profits. Universal health care would make things cheaper.
No, they don't want people who don't "contribute" to benefit off THEIR money!
What if... GASP, an ILLEGAL would benefit off their money???? Because you know, those illegals are just on all the gov files and they can strode into places and say "giv me moneyz" and we can't do anything about it!
It's purely down to not wanting to help others below them. Irony is not part of their vocabulary.
Apparently no one is 100% sure whether bloodsucking worms were named after doctors that used them, or doctors were named after the blood sucking worms that they commonly prescribed.
"Leech" being an old timey name for a medical doctor, possibly predating the term "doctor" which just came from "teacher" like "doctrine" or something.
Even with the issues it has (and there are a LOT of issues— too much to name here), i would still take the canadian healthcare system over the US’. My mom’s medication costs thousands of dollars, and it’s all covered. We wouldn’t be able to afford it otherwise and she’d likely be dead if it weren’t for the coverage.
Lol there are definitely treatments that are very expensive and not covered by some insurances. This is not a "statistic", just opinion. USA has it way worse of course. But I remember my dad having to lend money from friends because some of my mom's cancer treatments were not covered.
Edit: Also wtf why is this in shitpost
Well yes,.. but no, you can face significant financial burdens if someone in your family needs living assistance, such as a parent, and the state steps in to cover the costs. The law allows the state to require adult children to contribute to these expenses to a certain degree, but only after all assets of the elder or disabled person have been exhausted ("bankrupting" said person so to speak).
While this is not the same as bankrupting an entire family for life, it can indeed become a heavy financial strain if the parents were not adequately insured or financially prepared for such situations. The obligatio, however, is subject to strict thresholds and limits, such as exemptions for children earning below €100,000 annually, ensuring hardship is avoided.
Edit: "100.000k" sounds like much, but a German Dad providing for 2 kids and a stay at home wife would need this as a bare minimum to pay off the debt for the house 25km from the next medium city, in the next 20 years. No vacation outside Europe. Nothing fancy. If a parent then requires 1200€ per month, it's a massive strain.... so yeah, not bankrupting but painful.
OK, i need to chime in here, there is illness related work loss here in Canada. Also, you can go bankrupt from dental work if you cannot afford dental insurance or your job doesn't offer it (which most jobs that are not union/higher corp don't). You can literally die from poor dental hygiene, and even if you brush your teeth every day and floss, that doesn't mean your scott free from visiting the dentist.
In it's first three months, Canada's new Dental care plan has 75% of dentists signed up and 2.3m people.
As part of a phased rollout, the government began accepting claims for dental coverage for seniors in May and expanded eligibility to children under the age of 18 and Canadians with a valid Disability Tax Credit certificate in June.
Remaining eligible Canadians are scheduled to gain access in 2025.
yes, the reason i didn't mention that, is because that's very dependent on the next government. it will be around till the next election coming very soon. current polls have the conservative government getting a majority and its expected they will cut programs like this.
I don't know about the other countries, but In France there definitely still are problems, check this recent story https://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/a-la-une/on-lui-refuse-l-acces-aux-urgences-elle-accouche-sur-le-parking-de-l-hopital
A pregnant women was refused entrance to a private hospital she was forced to give birth on the parking lot in front of the entrance.
Sure the USA have an awful system but it doesn't mean it's perfect everywhere else. There are people that are bankrupt because of medical treatment here too. And we also have corrupt CEOs making it worse
Every country needs a Luigi.
USA have an awful system but it doesn't mean it's perfect everywhere else
I don't think that's the message in this post either, so... The message is, it's just far, far worse with the system they have, due to all healthcare being privatized.
At least that is my understanding. 🤷♂️
Yes of course,
I replied to this post because it is one of many making bold claims about healthcare in other countries than the US, most of the times claims about European countries healthcare made by US users are false and/or misleading.
Sure the US has a very bad system, I see it and recognize how bad it is, but it's a tad annoying to see stuff like that, that falsely say we have "0" bankruptcy or that "everything" is covered by public healthcare, that our life expectancy is that much higher, etc... Most claims are unsourced and blatantly false or largely inflated for shock value.
In France for example we have many issues with our public healthcare, not everything is covered (dental isn't for example), we aren't covered for the full amount unless we pay for private coverage on top (called "mutuelle") which often are linked to your employer, we have to pay up front and then get reimbursed later, geographically there are areas with very few hospitals, the poorer often can't afford to be sick because we aren't always automatically paid for sick days at work, there's a shortage of medical fields' workers, and our current political leaders have been making it worse for decades..
All that to say that from the perspective of a "European" citizen, these posts about the US system compared with ours feels like propaganda that "we should be happy with what we have" even though we really shouldn't, using false information.
I don't speak French. Why didn't she go to the public one? Why was she forced to give birth on the parking? Why not call an ambulance?
Unpopular opinion incoming: I can understand if they didn't allow her in in a PRIVATE one if she was not covered.
A pregnant women was refused entrance to a private hospital she was forced to give birth on the parking lot in front of the entrance.
Much different situation than in the US. They didn't go bankrupt. The private hospital just wanted to send them to the maternity room down the road. Was it a mistake by the hospital? Yes. But it wasn't because of lack of insurance or money and the mother didn't got bankrupt.
That's an easy 6 billion profit! Just pick them up in an ambulance and have them overnight for an upset stomach ulcer.
Haha that's not true. Canada is two tiered. You fucking full well know that not everything here is covered.
land of the free
*terms and conditions may apply
the US healthcare racket
The lesson is vote blue, and the USA has failed every single test for over 12 years.
If that's the lesson then when were we supposed to learn it? I am old enough to remember very well the last time Democrats tried to do something about healthcare. They gave up on single payer before the debate even started. Was that when I was supposed to learn to vote for them harder or was it one of the times they fucked over the only person with actual plans to implement universal healthcare?
Yes, Democrats are clearly better than the fascists masquerading as conservatives, but that doesn't mean they're fighting the good fight. They don't even try to force a vote on most things people actually care about. They just throw up their hands and complain that doing things is hard. Then everyone sits around blaming voters for not loving these ineffectual dipshits enough. Fuck that, they suck it's been that way for a lot more than 12 years.
When Democrats had 60 votes one DNC Senator, Joe Liebermen, stopped singlepayer from passing.
Joe died in 2013 at the ripe old age of 82.
Every single Republican voted No on singlepayer. They also voted No on the Medicaid Expansion and Protections for pre-existing conditions. Republicans continue to tell us repeatedly that they want to gut Medicaid and that Medicare for the elderly is also on the chopping block, but they haven't been able to get 60 votes, yet.
So the answer to your question of when is: Every Goddamn Year. If you want Single Payer then just elect 60 Dems to the senate, OR just 10 to 13 anybody else who is willing to vote for Single Payer, and if one of them still betrays us then elect a few more. We have privatized healthcare because voters are voting for politicians who want privatized healthcare, simple as.
Enjoying their freedom to be enslaved, as long as its freedom.
