As usual with those sorts of memes, the numbers are completely wrong. European nations spend around 11-12% of GDP on healthcare vs about 17% for the US. So you’d likely pay significantly less (about 30% less) with a similar public healthcare system, but far more than this pic pretends.
Remember kids, don’t believe everything you see on the internet.
“30% less” 😂 US GDP (it said % of pay, but let’s play your game) per capita is 1.5x or more European countries, so try at least 50% less. It’s a meme, it’s not meant to be accurate, but if you’re going to be a pedant at least be right.
Not to mention the lower cost is like 3rd on the list of reasons why public health care is amazing. Why you our here shilling for big business pal?
It’s a meme, it’s not meant to be accurate
That’s what every boomer on FB propagating fake news about immigrants eating pets also say. Just because it’s a picture means outright lying is okay. (and if it was lying in the other political direction, you’d likely be the first calling bullshit)
Why you our here shilling for big business pal?
Ah yes because everyone who isn’t into lying is “shilling for big business”? Life must be simple in your head. Maybe some people think the truth matters more then coddling their feeling?
So when the meme was wrong about 5% vs 20% it was “outright lying” but when you were shown to be wrong about your 30% you just continue on your high horse. Cool beans.
Not a political issue for me anymore thank goodness. Lived in the US for a while but very glad that public health is available for everyone where I live now (as is literally everyone else I know).
I mean private healthcare is strictly worse for everyone except business owners (and doctors without morals I guess). So that’s my best guess at your motivation, but please correct me. Why?
Well yeah but percentage of GDP is just the total spent. The point is that the USA relies primarily on employers paying for the insurance (through a pay cut) whereas in the EU it is generally subsidised with taxes. Which, if you tax fairly, means that the cost of healthcare is better for the average worker (e.g more based on how much any individual earns)
The point is that the USA relies primarily on employers paying for the insurance (through a pay cut) whereas in the EU it is generally subsidised with taxes.
This is a huge misconception. In the EU it’s also funded by the employers, the difference is that it’s usually mandatory (a tax taken out of the paycheck at the employer level) and also typically goes into a governement-run insurance system (ie the British NHS or the French sécu).
Ultimately it’s always people who pay for health care, because companies are just legal entities. The difference is how it’s organized and how much it cost.
US GDP is much higher than most (all?) European nations. California, on its own, is the fifth (at least the last time I looked) largest GDP in the world when compared to nations.
The US also has a massive population, which means a much larger insurance pool, which means the risk is spread out over a much larger swathe of people (and ethnicities, lifestyles, etc.).
So I’m not going to say this pic is accurate, as I have no actual numbers on this… But I also don’t think it’s fair to assume that it will cost the same % of GDP as nations that are a fraction of our size (and are often nearly homogeneous population-wise).
US GDP is much higher than most (all?) European nations.
And as you accurately pointed out, US population is also higher, and have different costs of living. Which is why we compare countries in % of GDP and not in raw dollars spent nationwide, which would make no sense at all.
The US also has a massive population, which means a much larger insurance pool, which means the risk is spread out over a much larger swathe of people (and ethnicities, lifestyles, etc.).
Doesn’t make any difference when you go over a few million people (or possibly much less)
So I’m not going to say this pic is accurate, as I have no actual numbers on this
Well I do, and this pic is clearly bullshit.
Just because you like the message doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to point out obvious lies.
For reference, in Belgium state mandated health care (RSZ) is about 40% of your income (1).
There is copay on things like glasses, hospitalization costs, … With additional (optional) insurance for those.
I feel like there’s a lot of misinformation spread around EU health insurance.
Readers added the following context:
Untrue.
It’s 13%.
It covers both heath care and social care (old people’s homes and help for elderly or disabled).
You’re referring to
The employee’s share of social security taxes is 13.07% of the total gross compensation, with no cap.
From source (1), I assume.
It’s true that the other 27% is taken from your wages by your employer, before it reaches you. But what’s the difference? Is it not still your take home pay that gets reduced by 40% for the purposes of health insurance?
It really sounds like you have no idea what the difference is between employee contributions and employer contributions.
Answer me this. If you get a company car for free, do you complain that your salary was reduced?
Tell me you don’t understand taxation without telling me you don’t understand taxation.
Maybe I’m blind, but I don’t see any mention of healthcare costs on the source you gave.
Per the OECD website, per capita healthcare spending in the US is the worst amongst the entire OECD, and Belgium is comparable to France and Sweden. Not the best, but far from the worst (and not accounting for better healthcare outcomes).
I don’t have sources on hand, but the US in general rates the worst for healthcare outcomes too.
that’s because they cite incorrect data.
“social security” is not health care fund; and 40% is employer and employee combined (employee only is ~ 13%) contribution. social security is pensions, survivor benefits, unemployment, sickness and maternity leave, etc.
employee share of contribution to public health insurance fund is (iirc) only 3.55%
employee share of contribution to public health insurance fund
If your employer takes part of your wages and pays, or you take part of your wages and pay. What’s the difference?
The “employee share” vs “employer share” makes no difference?
Man, you guys should really vote for a candidate who advocates for universal health care. Currently, the only candidate who is doing anything in that direction is Jill Stein. Vote Stein!
That’s a very short term view to take. All buying into the “vote blue no matter who” stance does is show the dems they’re accountable to no one but their corporate donors, since there’s no line they can cross that can make you not vote for them (they’re currently committing an actual honest to God genocide right now, and you’re actually considering voting for them). What you end up with is a democratic party which moves ever further right every cycle. The border wall used to be abhorrent and immoral, now the dems are gleefully building it. Kids in cages at the border used to be terrible, and now there’s more kids in cages than there were under Trump. We used to laugh and deride “drill baby drill”, and now Harris is essentially a pro-fracking candidate (watch her recent town hall). This is not a recent phenomenon; you can trace this back to Bill Clinton at least.
Every cycle they get more and more right wing, and the cause is precisely people who only know voting against something rather than for something. Look at Stein’s positions, and you’ll agree with them. Take a long term stance for a change, try and make use of your rights, and try and vote for something rather than against. Otherwise you’ll end up with even more of a one-party system than you already have.
I like Jill Stein. She can’t win this presidency. Voting for her results in Trump winning. That is a fact. I don’t like it either, but voting for her is the same as handing a vote to Trump. Again, I cannot stress this enough, I do not like this. I don’t want Kamala. I want a socialist. But Trump is a massive fucking threat, and Kamala is the only option that can beat him this race. Vote ideals locally, strategy federally.
yeah voting for a candidate who doesn’t have a ghost of a chance of winning sounds like a great plan, I’ll get right on that.
Who is paying 20% to just health care?
A little over 20% includes taxes as well out of my pay.
Covering my family at my last job was $1,200 a month. That was about 30% of my wage.
I showed this to my mom, and her reply was “but that socialism!” And promptly hung up on me.
Some people are so stupid and stubborn that they would rather be bilked by conmen than to actually get the care they need, affordably.
That’s kind of bullshit we’re dealing with.
Insurance IS socialism. By definition. The only difference is who holds the money from the group to pay out claims. In one, it’s the government which has an incentive to keep costs low across the board. The other it is a private company trying to make as much profit as possible.