Haha cringe commies don't wanna die lol

So a lot of Americans like the idea of more “Universal” services like medicine and education, but already most people are shocked on their first pay checks how little they take gone after taxes vs their pay, and a majority of Americans do not favor paying more. When a college kid graduates after 4-8 years and sees their take home, they quite often change their tune when you tell them that they can have “universal healthcare” or such, but their check is going to look a lot smaller afterwards.

A healthy adult with health coverage doesn’t see the stratospheric bills the media likes to report on generally. The successful and prudent financially can handle it generally. It’s the people who don’t make so little as to get “universal healthcare”- our government already offers “free” healthcare to individuals and children of families that make below threshold income; and the people who don’t make enough or aren’t prudent with their money whom most often have issues with out healthcare system- and then a minority of folks who just end up with bad luck coalescing at a critical moment.

There are four main groups that have healthcare trouble- real trouble with access- based on income. The elderly, whom America doesn’t do a good job caring for. The poor or under employed/unemployed who happen to not qualify for care because of metrics used to determine need. Those with serious and chronic illness or disease or condition who do require regular and costly treatments. Lastly- the voice you hear most from “middle class America” are people who can afford healthcare, but have to give up things they don’t want to in order to do so.

That last group, they aren’t helped by “universal healthcare” really. It’s statistics. The odds of having a serious medical expense, the percent that will be of your income, and the time it will take to pay off in installments on credit. Generally speaking, the “average” healthy person will pay less over their lifetime dealing with occasional medical bills than they would paying a significantly higher tax rate over their lifetime. To put it in perspective- people put it out as a humanitarian issue, access to medical care. But for most it’s not about access. They have access. It sadly isn’t empathy either for those with less. It’s about their own standard of living.

The United States has a very high income disparity, especially compared to Sweden. So the Swedish system of basin. Taxes off of an average income doesn’t work here. The average is skewed by the number of people making astronomical income and those making far below basic living needs. Our real estate is not regulated in price, and in most places rental prices are not regulated or are very modestly regulated- and it’s a very big country. I work with people who drive hundreds of miles a day to get to work, because they can’t afford to live near their job, or they wanted a decent home and couldn’t pay for one in the area. You get halos- areas around places where employment and wages are good, where rents and property prices are very high.

The “recommended maximum” is 30% of ones income should pay for a place to live in America. The “average” person is paying 35,40+%. In markets where real estate is most competitive people often pay 50% or more. If a person is making $3,000 a month after taxes and their rent is $1000 a month, and you double or triple their taxes.... yes. They will have “free medical” but they also will have far less money to live on. It’s a whole complex thing but it’s not just “go with universal health care” or “universal education” and all the problems solve themselves. Our whole system would need to be adjusted.

Thanks, @guest_ . An excellent clarification as always.

No worries. And I am glad you didn’t take my reply as somehow hostile, people often do and I did not intend it as such.