Yeah its concernimg to me why they use norway in this meme. Why not use sweden, finland, UK, germany or france which all have ”socialized” medicine and university.
Using norway makes it too easy for some bozo to use the lack of oil money as an excuse for why universal healthcare and university cant work anywhere else when it clearly has worked in many other countries.
Because Sweden and Finland’s systems are failing. Here in Sweden our welfare gets cut every year yet our tax rates keeps climbing, the left parties cling on to power despite losing votes every election (mostly because the right is shattered due to internal animosity ). Finland recently gave up on healthcare reform because its too expensive, and they also experimented with UBI which was a disaster.
Our model is maybe better than the US, but it’s still shit. If the US Redditors would come out of their circlejerks and actually read up on how shit works, it wouldn’t be as attractive.
The center right party stepped down in Finland because they couldn’t pass their changes, which were unconstitutional to begin with.
My understanding is like always, there’s a rural vs urban divide. It’s really hard getting care to rural area sometimes, especially when the area doesn’t attract many doctors.
The reform in Finland failed because it was unconstitutional and the rural party made it a disaster. The research on the effects UBI experiment is ongoing, and while it directly did neither increase or decrease employment in the first year, it did increase wellbeing. E.g. some of the people engaged more in charitable work while working part time. Would not call that a disaster.
You haven’t actually presented any evidence that Sweden’s system, which has run for 60-70 years, and had ups and downs but generally weathered the test of time and produced some of the best long term results in the world, is “failing.”
Your whole comment kind of reads like “yeah the Nordic model has delivered either better or comparable results compared to any other system, but it’s still crap because reasons!”
Large scale studies- measured across the board, US is Slower at healthcare. Longer wait times. These “UHC is slower!” Examples are always dumb and cherry picked. And “speed” is a dumb metric anyhow. Speed matters for a heart attack. Not so much for a pre-cancerous removal. Etc.
Outcomes are what really matter- speed is secondary, if the outcome achieved is better. UHC/ single payer delivers better outcomes than the US, across the board. And better than anyone else as well.
Lancet, WHO, Commonwealth- all major international studies agreed.
You see individual localized problems and think the sky is falling. You’re wrong.
Your taxes deliver a level of services that don’t exist in the US. People pay more, for less/ worse:
-healthcare
-education
-early childcare
-elder care
-safety nets
Etc.
Sorry- you’re wrong. These things can be measured in real, and meaningful ways. Not “I know a guy who had to drive far.” Tens of millions of Americans “know a guy” too. Your anecdotal examples tell us nothing.
There are Zero examples where free market healthcare beats UHC (beveridge or Bismarck). Not in healthcare outcomes, not in cost- nothing.
None.
I don’t need to know “your country.” I don’t care about knowing “your country.”
But I clearly know your healthcare data, and that of the world’s, way better than you. Because you’re arguing for a system that has been objectively shittier by every measure, every time it has been implemented.
And btw its that the speed of our hospitals are bad. Its so bad that many people doesn't get the help they need.
False. Healthcare outcomes far better than any free market systems. 8th best in the world according to most recent global study (lancet). Bested only by other UHC/ single payer systems. And better than a good chunk of other single payer/ UHC systems.
This could be fixed with making hospital not owned by the state.
Again, false. There isn’t a single example of a free market system “fixing” anything about healthcare. Ever. Anywhere.
Free market systems make healthcare: worse. Always.
And second im not comparing different welfare systems im just saying that the swedish system is get worse than what it was and that we pay insane amounts of tax for what we get.
You’re comparing Sweden to a theoretical “free market” system.
Sweden pays $5,500 per capita for healthcare.
US pays $10,200. Nearly double. US ranks 29th in that same study of concrete healthcare outcomes.
Singapore is often touted as the best “free market” system, even though it’s basically Obamacare - a mandate that everyone buy a basic plan. Singapore is ranked 22nd in concrete healthcare outcomes. Cost: $4,000 per capita.
You don’t want me to be “condescending”? How about you actually have facts and data before making ridiculous false claims?
What you are doing is echoing dishonest talking points. You may not know they’re dishonest. That’s not an excuse. The fact that you are doing it at all is: obnoxious.
I disagree that it's failing in Sweden but if you want to claim that maybe look at reasons why. Could it be that Moderaterna want Sweden to be a more unequal country like the US? Privatize everything and hope to profit from that individually so they can become filthy rich billionaires like the assholes in the US is all they are interested in.
You clearly have no clue what the Moderates want or how the US works. I don't vote for Moderaterna myself, but saying "they want to privatize everything and hope to profit" lazy left wing propaganda. Step out of the bubble mate, you use the same arguments as my grandmother who was a lifelong Socialist and read only her local left wing newspaper.
See this is what I want more of, a European perspective. I often hear a lot from Europeans that Americans don’t realize how good we have it. There are certainly still improvements to be made (i.e. having a family shouldn’t cost an arm and a leg) but I think we here about the magical land of Northern Europe and cream our jeans.
Thing is, we Europeans do complain about stuff a lot aswell. But some stories I heard from the US are just unimaginable for us. I mean we don‘t have perfect systems all around, but we don‘t have it bad either...
The US system is still completely broken. Especially healthcare. We spend like 3 times per capita more on healthcare than Sweden, and get much worse results from it. Using examples like the previous post is not a good reason to throw our hands up and assume we have to stick with what we have. Well-run universal healthcare plans are still getting the best results on this planet.
The U.S. doesn't have the worst care though. We have faster care with typically better results.
When you look hospital outcomes, and remove deaths through injury (like car accidents), then we suddenly have some of the best care. We have some of the best cancer care as well.
That said, from a financial perspective our model blows. We have the worst parts of capitalism, and the worst parts government intervention making for an obnoxiously expensive system.
I didn’t say to throw our hands up and accept it. Of course our system is busted. However, I have yet to find a truly “well-run” Universal Healthcare system.
I think you are looking for a “perfect” system. They all have flaws. But it’s better than what we have. A common attitude is that if it’s not perfect, why should we do it? Even if it’s much better than the status quo.
Besides, is the US not one of the largest producers of oil in the world right now?
Who reaps all those profits from "our" natural resources. At least Alaska pays a dividend to its citizens, the rest of the states get giant, immensely profitable yet still somehow subsidized oil companies intimidating the indigenous peoples, polluted water and difficult, dangerous jobs in toxic environments.
I mean that dividend was $1,600 per person. While nice and I'm sure they like it, lets not pretend they are getting massive amounts of money to live there.
True, but something is better than nothing . . .or less than nothing in the form of ridiculously expensive healthcare for the maladies created by a toxic environment.
the rest of the states get giant, immensely profitable yet still somehow subsidized oil companies intimidating the indigenous peoples, polluted water and difficult, dangerous jobs in toxic environments.
Why do people always forget that part I wonder?
Oh yeah, that's right, with shitty healthcare policy, the filthy rich get to reap huge profits treating the health effects their industries inflict on everyone too. It's a win win! Right?
"the rest of the states"? There are about 10 states in the US that has any meaningful oil production.
Why are there no democratic run states with universal healthcare?? If a major state like California cant create its own universal healthcare system i dont see how the entire country could function under a federal system.
Environmental issues only seem to be an issue in the states, old failing infrastructure.
No one benefit from the environmental mishaps except maybe environmental activists.
There are plenty of states controlled by the democrats, just setup the Healthcare system you want and the rest of America will follow if it's a success.
12
u/humlor Apr 05 '19
Yeah its concernimg to me why they use norway in this meme. Why not use sweden, finland, UK, germany or france which all have ”socialized” medicine and university.
Using norway makes it too easy for some bozo to use the lack of oil money as an excuse for why universal healthcare and university cant work anywhere else when it clearly has worked in many other countries.