Hacker News Reader

Comment by ARandomerDude | Hacker News Reader

I’m amazed by how many people use the word “free” to mean “pay even more tax for the rest of your life.”

I probably pay more tax than you do (based on your comment).

I live in Sweden, in Europe. For that I (and everyone around me) have free school up to and including university studies (actually I would get paid USD 330 in grants, up to 240 weeks, plus the ability to take a loan, neither which I have to use for tuition fees).

I have nearly free health care and medicine (max costs for 12 months $120 and $230 respectively). Subsidised child care, and more.

Cost of living is lower in Sweden [1] rather than in the US, as a comparison (partially because the Swedish currency has dropped in value). But I don’t have to go bankrupt just because I got cancer and didn’t have a good health insurance or sign up for a massive debt to get a university education.

[1] https://livingcost.org/cost/sweden/united-states

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_resu...

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/cost-of-living/sweden/united...

You're just reinforcing his/her 's point.

It's not free. You're forcefully taking money out of people's pockets to support the system.

Yes, we prefer to share the good stuff and not let a few hoard it. It actually makes everyone better off. There is no coincidence that the Nordic countries have a better life quality in essentially every way measured.

Everybody knows it's not free. But it's much better when it's much cheaper or free at the point of use.

I'm from Germany that also lived in the US. I paid 300-400$ out of pocket for a 30 minute surgery with just a local anesthesia. In Germany I paid 40 euros for 30 minutes with full anesthesia 3 days in the hospital. I also had weekly check ups for 3-4 months at no out of pocket cost.

An American coworker here at had a 3-4 month old kid that had a lump on her back. Next day pediatrician. Next day oncologist. First chemo within 10 days. Never paid anything out of pocket.

your is misused here. It's "free" for the person attending. I don't think many people are confused and think there is no cost or that it's not borne by taxpayers.

It's not free for them, it's being taken out of their income to the point their salaries are significantly lower than the US. This is like saying if I pre-order a game and then play it when it comes out I'm getting a free game.

I have no idea why this is the default answer whenever this comes up. It seems like you're trying to sway opinions by gaslighting what's really happening. Why is it hard to admit the term free is obviously being misused in this case to present socially funding healthcare as better?

The thing the article talks about is: not charging for tuition, ever. It's not some kind of loan program or pay later program. Those programs have been discussed, are in place in certain places (australia for example), but is not what people are talking about here.

Unless you are saying "if everyone goes, and everyone pays taxes, it's a wash"? In which case, that's not close to the reality of the situation. As a percentage of the population, attendees of in state public universities is low and always has been. If you don't think that some subset is being subsidized by the general population is good, that's a reasonable argument, but to suggest it's a wash just isn't accurate.

I'm not talking about the article. I'm referring directly to the comment chain about "free" healthcare.

Regardless, taxes are NOT FREE. College will never be free, you can only pass the cost on to someone else. Somewhere, someone in the chain has to pay for it. If someone provides you a service then it gets paid for by someone. If no one pays for it then it's slavery and the people providing the service pay with their own bodies/minds.

Obviously you're not suggesting professors and people that run the university not get paid.... so who is paying for it? This isn't a hard concept and yet you keep kicking the can down the road suggesting it's free free free. Where does the money come from?

Oh, i missed that re healthcare.

You are arguing a semantic issue that practically everyone is aware of. "free" in this context refers to the person receiving the service without paying for it, irrespective of who else is paying for it. Everyone knows it's not great wording.

Everyone is not aware of it that's why I'm saying it. It's a deliberate use of the word free to confuse and gaslight people. There are many people out there that are 1 dimensional thinkers and can't think past a few steps. This is why we had a large portion of the population demanding they get their school loans forgiven in the U.S. They're unable to think of the repercussions of totally swamping the economy and the fact that in the end the money will be paid back by them anyway.

I agree that socialized healthcare has its advantages but it's not even free for the person receiving service, they're just pre-ordering their service. Just like I said in an above comment, you don't call pre-order game free even though at the moment it comes at you're not paying anything.

What's a better way to phrase it concisely?

Just call it public funded healthcare or socialized healthcare. I'm assuming you believe it's a better option so presenting the positives of this system should be enough. I think cons should be presented as well though, because no system is perfect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com