we had a march about facts very recently and I appreciate your bringing facts into the conversation.
total us healthcare expenditure is about 2x that of oecd country averages. so if the british pay about 300 euros, we pay about 600 euros all said and done. it's bad, but the aggregate numbers are what they are. And what they aren't are multiple of the UK average. it's 2x.
Additional qualifiers: clearly, there is a progressive nature to scaling premiums to salary levels. In the US, this is also the case. It's called obamacare subsidies. For a family of four that made 60k euros, the expected monthly premiums are something to the tune of 6k/yr or 500 USD/month. (the kaiser health foundation, a more reputable source, used to have such a table, but i can't find it anymore). A family that made 20k euros, the premium would be about 500/yr or 41/month.
That is assuming that family lives in a state that accepted the medicaid expansion. A huge drawback to our system is that it's complicated. We have tons of obamacare enrollers and even i'm not entirely sure how everything works despite being a fairly interested party. I can only imagine how someone who doesn't enjoy this stupid boring shit views the incredibly complicated law. Especially those who might otherwise be preoccupied by multiple jobs and a family.
The point really being that there is a progressive nature to the ACA as well (it was a dem plan, afterall), but it's complicated and due to that, there's a lot of misconceptions and outright ignorance about what the law did or does.
