> You did not believe the 91% figure I provided, so frantically looked for evidence to support your presupposition that only the top 1%
Stop inventing arguments for other people, and then bravely fighting these arguments.
> found that the 91% figure is indeed accurate, so could only come up with the above as riposte.
Yes. It's a valid riposte: I cannot imagine a European proudly "debunking" something by saying "yeah, we have 28 million people uninsured, it's their own fault"
> The US mixed system of public and private healthcare coverage is quite similar to the system used in Germany, Switzerland, and other countries
It's not.
> Before Obamacare, about 85% of Americans had health insurance.
Before, during, and after Obamacare 100% Europeans (well, not entirely true [1]) have insurance
> or a German who changes jobs and neglects to transfer coverage to a provider that serves his new industry.
Your medical insurance is not tied to your job in Germany (or anywhere in Europe).
> Yes, 85%. Again, contrary to what Reddit told you.
You keep inventing arguments for your opponent and bravely debunking them. The only numbers I provided are taken directly from US Census.
[1] some (8 in 2016, 4 in 2020) countries in the EU have lower insurance rates. However:
- these countries keep increasing coverage or implementing reforms to bring universal healthcare (Cyprus an Ireland)
- even "uninsured" still have free access to emergency care and care during pregnancy (e.g. Romania)
>Yes. It's a valid riposte: I cannot imagine a European proudly "debunking" something by saying "yeah, we have 28 million people uninsured, it's their own fault"
The US is a country of 330 million. I can say that out of 80 million Germans at least 2-3 million (3%) are without health insurance. Is that something to be "proud" of? Or, as I said, are such gaps inevitable in any health-insurance system that a) requires some sort of membership (i.e., almost all developed countries outside the UK NHS), plus b) the US's unique situation of another 3-4% without health insurance inherent from having 10 million illegal aliens within its borders?
>> The US mixed system of public and private healthcare coverage is quite similar to the system used in Germany, Switzerland, and other countries
>It's not.
In what way are the systems greatly different? In both the US and Germany/Switzerland/etc., people obtain insurance from either a variety of private sources (in the US, nonprofit or for-profit) or public (in the US, Medicare, Medicaid, military Tricare, Indian Health Service). Post-Obamacare, the US also mandates that those without insurance obtain it from some source, whether public or private.
Now, you may quibble and say that the hundreds of German sickness funds are not really "private" because they are nonprofit, but they are independent from the government like their US counterparts, both nonprofit (example: Kaiser) and profit (example: Aetna). Both countries' systems differ from, say, the UK NHS (which handles both payment and delivery), the Canadian single-payer system (which handles payment, with no alternative allowed by law), or the Australian system (single-payer, but with a heavy emphasis on encouraging people to move to private plans).
>Your medical insurance is not tied to your job in Germany (or anywhere in Europe).
I didn't say that insurance in Germany is tied to one's job. However, German coverage offerings, providers, and types of providers (public or private) differ depending on whether one is an ordinary private-sector employee, a government employee, or student. Also, German employers pay for part of employees' premiums, as in the US.
>- even "uninsured" still have free access to emergency care and care during pregnancy (e.g. Romania)
This is true as well in the US; the EMTALA law prohibits turning away anyone from hospitals regardless of ability to pay.
> You did not believe the 91% figure I provided, so frantically looked for evidence to support your presupposition that only the top 1%
Stop inventing arguments for other people, and then bravely fighting these arguments.
> found that the 91% figure is indeed accurate, so could only come up with the above as riposte.
Yes. It's a valid riposte: I cannot imagine a European proudly "debunking" something by saying "yeah, we have 28 million people uninsured, it's their own fault"
> The US mixed system of public and private healthcare coverage is quite similar to the system used in Germany, Switzerland, and other countries
It's not.
> Before Obamacare, about 85% of Americans had health insurance.
Before, during, and after Obamacare 100% Europeans (well, not entirely true [1]) have insurance
> or a German who changes jobs and neglects to transfer coverage to a provider that serves his new industry.
Your medical insurance is not tied to your job in Germany (or anywhere in Europe).
> Yes, 85%. Again, contrary to what Reddit told you.
You keep inventing arguments for your opponent and bravely debunking them. The only numbers I provided are taken directly from US Census.
[1] some (8 in 2016, 4 in 2020) countries in the EU have lower insurance rates. However:
- these countries keep increasing coverage or implementing reforms to bring universal healthcare (Cyprus an Ireland)
- even "uninsured" still have free access to emergency care and care during pregnancy (e.g. Romania)
>Yes. It's a valid riposte: I cannot imagine a European proudly "debunking" something by saying "yeah, we have 28 million people uninsured, it's their own fault"
The US is a country of 330 million. I can say that out of 80 million Germans at least 2-3 million (3%) are without health insurance. Is that something to be "proud" of? Or, as I said, are such gaps inevitable in any health-insurance system that a) requires some sort of membership (i.e., almost all developed countries outside the UK NHS), plus b) the US's unique situation of another 3-4% without health insurance inherent from having 10 million illegal aliens within its borders?
>> The US mixed system of public and private healthcare coverage is quite similar to the system used in Germany, Switzerland, and other countries
>It's not.
In what way are the systems greatly different? In both the US and Germany/Switzerland/etc., people obtain insurance from either a variety of private sources (in the US, nonprofit or for-profit) or public (in the US, Medicare, Medicaid, military Tricare, Indian Health Service). Post-Obamacare, the US also mandates that those without insurance obtain it from some source, whether public or private.
Now, you may quibble and say that the hundreds of German sickness funds are not really "private" because they are nonprofit, but they are independent from the government like their US counterparts, both nonprofit (example: Kaiser) and profit (example: Aetna). Both countries' systems differ from, say, the UK NHS (which handles both payment and delivery), the Canadian single-payer system (which handles payment, with no alternative allowed by law), or the Australian system (single-payer, but with a heavy emphasis on encouraging people to move to private plans).
>Your medical insurance is not tied to your job in Germany (or anywhere in Europe).
I didn't say that insurance in Germany is tied to one's job. However, German coverage offerings, providers, and types of providers (public or private) differ depending on whether one is an ordinary private-sector employee, a government employee, or student. Also, German employers pay for part of employees' premiums, as in the US.
>- even "uninsured" still have free access to emergency care and care during pregnancy (e.g. Romania)
This is true as well in the US; the EMTALA law prohibits turning away anyone from hospitals regardless of ability to pay.
> In what way are the systems greatly different?
The US:
- insurance is largely tied to employer
- insurance providers go out of their way to not cover, well, a lot
- even having good insurance still often means you need to spend a significant amount of time fighting the bills
- you have to navigate the maze of "this doctor at this hospital is out of network"
- yes, you won't be turned away at the hospital even if you're uninsured, but you will be saddled with the bill
Rando on the Internet: how is this different?
> Now, you may quibble and say that
You may keep pretending that you you can invent the arguments for me.
I will not engage in this thread any longer. Adieu.
1 reply →
"your presupposition that only the top 1% .. have health insurance" "so could only come up with the above as riposte."
So you throw an accusation that you literally pulled out of your rear and will not dignify the point that your interlocutor made with any response?
I think this has gone well past reasonable discourse and we can no longer assume good faith from you.