Maybe I’m blind, but I don’t see any mention of healthcare costs on the source you gave.
Per the OECD website, per capita healthcare spending in the US is the worst amongst the entire OECD, and Belgium is comparable to France and Sweden. Not the best, but far from the worst (and not accounting for better healthcare outcomes).
I don’t have sources on hand, but the US in general rates the worst for healthcare outcomes too.
“social security” is not health care fund; and 40% is employer and employee combined (employee only is ~ 13%) contribution. social security is pensions, survivor benefits, unemployment, sickness and maternity leave, etc.
employee share of contribution to public health insurance fund is (iirc) only 3.55%
Even if you were making the point you think you’re making… The US already has employer-contributions to health care, and its a whole lot. My experience likely isn’t the norm as I’m in a union position, but my employer foots the bill for something like ~70% of my health insurance. They take a chunk out of my paycheck, but it’s still only maybe 1/3 of what it actually costs.
So if you want it to be a fair comparison, you’re going to have to take that into consideration too. If you’re suggesting that an employer in an EU nation will pay someone less because they have to shell out to contribute to their health insurance, then you need to realize that the same conditions are present here.
It’s not really fair to only include that on one side of the equation, when it is happening on both sides.
Maybe I’m blind, but I don’t see any mention of healthcare costs on the source you gave.
Per the OECD website, per capita healthcare spending in the US is the worst amongst the entire OECD, and Belgium is comparable to France and Sweden. Not the best, but far from the worst (and not accounting for better healthcare outcomes).
I don’t have sources on hand, but the US in general rates the worst for healthcare outcomes too.
that’s because they cite incorrect data.
“social security” is not health care fund; and 40% is employer and employee combined (employee only is ~ 13%) contribution. social security is pensions, survivor benefits, unemployment, sickness and maternity leave, etc.
employee share of contribution to public health insurance fund is (iirc) only 3.55%
If your employer takes part of your wages and pays, or you take part of your wages and pay. What’s the difference?
The “employee share” vs “employer share” makes no difference?
Even if you were making the point you think you’re making… The US already has employer-contributions to health care, and its a whole lot. My experience likely isn’t the norm as I’m in a union position, but my employer foots the bill for something like ~70% of my health insurance. They take a chunk out of my paycheck, but it’s still only maybe 1/3 of what it actually costs.
So if you want it to be a fair comparison, you’re going to have to take that into consideration too. If you’re suggesting that an employer in an EU nation will pay someone less because they have to shell out to contribute to their health insurance, then you need to realize that the same conditions are present here.
It’s not really fair to only include that on one side of the equation, when it is happening on both sides.
That’s a fair point I did not consider. Thank you.
I’m mainly confused about the “5% of your paycheck” claim made here.
It’s way, way higher in places that do have universal healthcare, all things considered.
People unfamiliar with the system seem to often have unrealistic expectations, exacerbated by political propaganda.