Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrismatheson | Hacker News Reader

But most of Europe aren’t spending 20-30% of their income on healthcare. If you take that into account I wonder how these numbers stack up

View on HN

At $45,284 the US has the highest household net disposable income per capita in the OECD (http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/united-states/), where "disposable income" (http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=46) accounts for healthcare and government benefits.

Neither are Americans. I think you have some flawed numbers: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/09/americans-spend-twice-as-muc...

The average American spends about $5000 on healthcare per year. That’s only 20-30% if your income is $15,000 per year.

If you’re making $100K per year or more (median SWE compensation) or even $200K or more (upper end SWE compensation) then it’s really not a big deal.

EDIT: This is why I loathe discussions about politics ok HN. Would appreciate some responses rather than downvotes for citing the corrected numbers.

Most people aren't on that kind of wage though..

Your 20-30% claim is still way too high for even the median wages, ignoring typical SWE comp. it’s not clear where you got your numbers, but they’re not supported by the data.

The median US wages are covered by the subsidies above. Again, I want to emphasize that I support health care reform to improve coverage at the lower wages, but I’m trying to explain the discrepancy between the dire picture painted online and the seemingly irrational voting patterns of most Americans. The idea that you can move to a median European country and come out ahead financially due to government healthcare doesn’t really add up.

I wasn't the grandfather poster you're responding to. But I'll give you my perspective as a Brit. It seems to me a conflation of two separate things. The pro-business environment over the pond allows a lucky minority to capitalise and have a higher standard of living than most places in the world. That is a plus for people who can make it in the U.S. for sure. Glossing over the unlucky majority for the sake of the argument; this state of affairs doesn't seem entirely dependent on the lack of a national healthcare system. It just so happens that a slice of those lucky few don't want to lose their various golden geese, so they have been campaigning to keep the status quo.

Socialised healthcare is cheaper but my understanding. You could have your cake and eat it. I'm open to reading data pointing to the contrary.

Well, they are, but they are taxed for it so “its free”

The US spends more tax money per capita on healthcare than most EU countries. And then it spends a bunch more privately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...

It is true but it proves nothing. US has ridiculously inflated health care prices. According to this article https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47491964 monthly cost of diabetics treatment in 2016 was $19 in Italy and $360 in the US. So US is spending here over 20 times more for the same treatment.

Here’s about the $1.1M bill for the 62 days treatment https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/inspiring-story-of...

They charged $2,835 a day for the ventilator. Seriously? You may buy brand new ventilator for 29,000 PLN in Poland which is around $7500, hospital usage certified ‘PHILIPS RESPIRONICS TRILOGY 100’. You may rent brand new top model of Lamborghini in Los Angeles for around $2500 a day. In Europe they won’t even charge for the ventilator. The room, which costs on that bill $9,736 a day should be already equipped in everything what’s necessary to support life. If the room price doesn’t cover the equipment, does it mean it’s just 9k for the bed a day?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com