That's just not accurate.

In a ponzi scheme new investors are acquired to funnel profits to old investors, with the new either seeing no benefit or hardly any. Universal medicare benefits anyone who needs it, and society as a whole because it is in the best interests of a country to have a healthy population.

"In a ponzi scheme new investors are acquired to funnel profits to old investors." That's actually exactly what's happening with medicare. Again, the "old" are getting much more than they put in and the "new" pay to keep it afloat. Here in the US it starts at 65, but people weren't expected to live much longer than that when it was designed.

Taxes on medicare and social security have frankly not increased enough based on trends. The only tax increases that are popular though are on the rich. There is also the argument retirement age should be increased. Obviously that's not a popular thing for a politician to suggest. Given those circumstances its a popular system, but may lose some praise if taxes increased.

So again, just clarifying its a popular system that's arguably undertaxed and at this point very funded by the "new." Also, its not like medicare money is just sitting around. The "new" have to pay for it. Which is why I use the term ponzi scheme.

You should probably become a liberal or conservative. Libertarians want open borders, that's not good.

I found this healthcare study which ranks all the countries in the world, it's from 2021.

https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

This ranking is the same as that study, Sweden is ranked 23, it should really be ranked top 5. Not sure what metrics they are using as I didn't read the pdf. But the healthcare in my country has been excellent.

No, but you are hitting on something I am more conservative about, but left-ish in some aspect given shitty circumstances. Sometimes I feel libertarians, much like liberals, don't think too much about the impact of mass immigration.

Liberals have become the party of immigration regardless how it happens. Let many in legally, turn everyone who is here into legal voters and frankly, people coming in illegally is fine and we'll give them free healthcare in the process (perhaps Amazon will pay for it). As far as I am aware, no other developed nation is doing this because it breaks the system. Especially if its a welfare state.

Libertarians are certainly open to letting many in, which I don't inherently oppose. There are many jobs that can be filled by immigration and that benefits us. Depending who you ask though, you may get different responses. To put it simply, a more common libertarian response would be do it in a more controlled manner, more work visas, etc. Essentially get what we need as opposed to the bullshit happening now. People throwing babies over a wall isn't intended to benefit the US for example.

Staunch libertarians argue against minimum wages. However, given this country handles immigration poorly and the market is flooded with low skill labor. I tend to support a reasonable minimum wage. I don't think a $15 federal minimum is a good idea, but so many low skill people in the job market does reduce potential wages. Speaking of which, Biden did support a $15 federal minimum when he was campaigning. He even attacked Trump for not supporting it. As president though, $15 federal minimum is not looking that important to Biden in spite of his policies raising costs of living.

Conservatives don't actually oppose immigration. There is no republican saying, "fuck all immigrants." If anything, they just want it more merit based. I mean I am sure we can still let many focusing more people that will contribute big and small. The way we handle it now means you get a lot of burdens and we produce enough of that on our own. Also, conservatives will argue letting many in lowers potential wages because there is less competition in the market. Which I agree with but not looking to really discuss.

Anyway, I said earlier I will stop posting. But if people respond with something new, I may respond. I will ignore comments that will go in circles.

Just taking a glance at the PDF and knowing a little about how lists like this are put together, costs is a big factor. Maybe even more than the actual quality of what is offered. I mean its worth considering people with money do actually travel to #37 for care. Meanwhile people looking to pay less go somewhere else.

The point I was trying to make in earlier posts is simply making the effort to improve affordability and socializing some aspects that bankrupt people, like cancer. That would actually make people feel much better about our system even without making the leap to universal healthcare.

The new benefit just as much from it when they need it though, unlike in a Ponzi scheme where new investors do not get a fair share of the benefits.

If you get injured in a car crash at age 18 or are born with a lifelong congenital disease, you still get the full benefits. When I got cancer at age 30 I didn't have to go broke or go without treatment as a low income earner because of it.

I tend to be a bit pessimistic about programs run unsustainably. At some point the "new" are gonna have to get hit with a large tax increase. While the "old" will say, "I am entitled because I paid!" Hence, its not gonna be fair at this rate because the old are getting more than they put in, the new will pay more because the program is no longer sustaining itself. We are already at that point by the way, there just hasn't been a tax increase.

Medicaid and social security are different. I'm fine with safety nets for people that truly need them. Primarily if they have real problems, not just a series of dumb life choices. I want people with cancer and other serious conditions to be socialized for the poor. It would take only fraction to pay for that versus every little need that many working people could pay out of pocket. Everybody needs the small things, but a much smaller number of people need help with bankrupting medical issues.

Universal Medicare was established 37 years ago here in 1984 and seems to be sustaining itself just fine. 

Personally, even if I hadn't gotten cancer and ended up needing it, I'm fine with paying a little over time not just in case I need it, but so that a kid with cancer can get life saving surgery or a granddad with a bad heart can get the transplant he needs. Of all the things my tax dollars could be spent on, I'm fine with them going towards helping others.

Do you think the capitalization on the American health system is the reason for the medical industry pushing all the bizarrely and clearly unhealthy diets like the all-fat and all-meat diets?
It’s like they're grooming people for a future in a hospital bed.

EDIT - wow, had to fix the oldest English grammar mistake in the book, haha!