Healthcare: How Much Would You Be Willing To Pay?

[Prophet 451]

I'm British, we have socialised healthcare here, paid for out of taxes. Right upfront, I'll concede it's not perfect. However, for the most part, it works.

The annual operating budget for the NHS is roughly £62 billion annually. That works out at slightly over £1000 per person, per year (roughly $2000) and covers you for everything (except dental care due to a loophole in the legislation). The average family income here is a touch under £24,000 (roughly $48,000). By my schoolboy maths, that means roughly 5% of your wages provide complete healthcare for your family for everything (except dental). Nobody is denied care because of cost, no corporate suit decides if you do or don't deserve to be treated. You just call up your doctor and get an appointment (usually on the same day). He either gives you a prescription, sends you for further tests, sends you to hospital or, if you're a hyperchondriac, sends you home. You take the prescription to a chemist, pay £7 toward the cost of the drugs (roughly $14 and the young, old and poor are exempt) and the rest is covered by taxes.

That's Britain. France (generally accepted as having the best form of healthcare) has slightly higher costs at around 7.5% of your wages (and employers contribute more). Germany's is higher still at around 9% (I'm pulling these numbers from a 2004 copy of the Guardian so they may be out of date).

According to some Americans I talk to, that seems absurdly high. And yet, it's actually cheaper than the US costs. According to the most recent figures I can find, the average US citizen spends at least $5,500 a year on healthcare and often more and even that is misleading because of the way insurance companies cherrypick both their customers and their care.

I'm not sure what I'm saying here, just that the US is the only industrialised nation in the world without some form of universal healthcare and yet, you pay more than most of us do. Worth thinking about.

[leftofcool]

1. I would have no problem with this system at all

I would pay 15% if needed so people with less income would not have to pay as much as 5%.

[Prophet 451]

5. Some do

Because it's collected in taxes, the wealthy contribute more (up to 40% income tax and 11% national insurance (our version of social security)) and the poor contribute less. The unemployed pay no taxes at all but they're still covered.

[newfie11]

2. What about retired people

or those without jobs?

[leftofcool]

3. young, old and poor exempt from paying

[Prophet 451]

4. They're covered too

Under the British, French and German systems, they're all covered by the same system. In Britain, they're also exempt from the £7 contribution to drug costs.

[newfie11]

6. Sure beats what we in the states have!

[Bigmack]

7. The govt could raise ....

the taxes my wife and I (retired) pay by $6K and we'd still make out under govt-run health care that paid everything.

We don't quite have Medicare yet, but as far as we can understand, we're gonna save around $1800 under Medicare.

Our next door neighbor in the winter is German, and their govt insurance picks up everything... and I mean everything.... even medical services performed in this country. And they don't just "Treat 'em and Street 'em", either. Her tale of her last hospitalization sounds like a leisurely three weeks at a rest camp.

[Prophet 451]

15. We're midway on that one

We don't do the "treat 'em and street 'em" but we're not quite as luxurious as the Germans either. We do long-term care very well though.

EDIT: The NHS will also cover medical treatment performed in any country that recognises the E111 system. What that means is that if you get sick in another country covered by the system (all of the EU and Commonwealth, quite a lot of the rest of the world), you just show them your E111 certificate (standard issue with your passport) and they bill the NHS for the costs.

[BattyDem]

8. Most Americans hear the word "tax" and immediately think "they're taking my money"

We accept words like "deductible" and "co-pay" even if it means we're spending thousands of dollars every year without getting full coverage. But ... replace the word "deductible" with "tax" and most Americans don't want to hear it, even if it means taking far less money out of their own pockets. It's so silly.

Note to the Dems...
Anyone who wants to create Universal Health Coverage in the US needs to change their terminology. Don't talk about "garnishing wages" or "taxing individuals" - talk about "yearly deductibles based on income" and "minimal prescription copays." How can anyone argue against that?


On edit:
For most people, the income percentage would end up being far less money than what they're actually paying now. Even if your employer provides insurance, you still pay a portion of the premium, deductibles, copays, and you're forced to pay for all treatment, medicine and tests that the insurance company won't cover because they don't think you need them. :eyes:

[Prophet 451]

20. Americans are weird about tax

I've noticed before that a lot of Americans are insanely taxaphobic. For example, the "double taxation" myth. Unless the combined percentage is egregious, what does it matter? What's the real difference between paying tax at 20% or paying two 10% taxes on the same sum? And yet, I talk to Americans, even rational liberal Americans and they go nuts just at the mention of being taxed twice.

[HughBeaumont]

40. Well . . .

When they give this:



to pretty much all social programs, infrastructure repair, schools, etc and in comparison give this:



to the Pentasewer and it's $350 million a day bloodbath, tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate welfare/bailouts (they've already determined that Bear Stearns will be saved on our dollar . . . funny how no one makes such a huge stench over that as we do "Soshulahzed Med'cin") . . .

Then THAT could be defined as "taking your money".

The problem is what we use that tax money FOR.

And trust me . . . I wouldn't EVEN miss $2000 a year pre-net if it meant I would be covered no matter WHAT and little to no out-of-pocket costs. That to me is REAL security and safety, not what PresentDunce Bewsh is doing against the terrsts.

[Prophet 451]

42. Out-of-pocket costs

As said £7 contribution to your drug costs for each prescription (unless you're young, old or poor). If you use the NHS a lot, you can actually get a pre-payment card for those costs. Costs a little over £100 a year and means you don't even have to pay the contribution (I have one because my depression and stomach problem requires a monthly prescription for medication).

Oh, and the occasional pack of asprin. You could theoretically get that on the NHS too but why would you bother the doctor for it?

[BattyDem]

43. That's the odd thing about it

Our tax dollars are spent on war, corporate welfare, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc ... and there really isn't a lot of outrage from the general population. People may complain a bit, but nobody truly cares enough to do a damn thing about it. BUT ... as soon as someone suggests that American tax dollars be used to help average citizens stay healthy, many people lose their freakin' minds! I don't get it.

You hear things like ...

"I don't want the government telling me what doctors I can see" (though they think it's perfectly fine for private insurance companies to make those decisions for them)

or

"I don't want my hard earned money being used for health care for some lazy ass who couldn't be bothered to take care of himself" (while completely overlooking the fact that their own family would receive the same high-quality, full coverage benefits that the so-called "lazy ass" would receive).


What is it about universal healthcare that gets people so crazy? We're the only industrialized nation that doesn't have it. We spend more money per person than any other country, yet we are far from having the healthiest population. 50 million people don't have health insurance, millions of others are paying thousands of dollars a year in out-of-pocket expenses and far too many people are forced into bankruptcy simply because they were unlucky enough to get a sick. It's disgusting! :mad:

I totally agree with you .... I'd be perfectly willing to give up $2000 a year and KNOW that I am FULLY covered no matter what. Always being able to get the treatment, medication and care that you need and never worrying about ending up on the street because of medical debt - most people would be thrilled to have that, yet many of those same people fight against it because they don't want to pay a new "tax" :crazy:

[Prophet 451]

44. "I don't want the government telling me what doctors I can see"

I keep hearing this one, mainly from Americans opposed to universal healthcare and it always puzzles me because no universal care system I know of does this. What happens in virtually every system is that you pick your own doctor as normal (although quite a lot of doctors say you must live within X miles so they can properly deal with out-of-hours care), it's just that the bill is picked up by the NHS (or the national equivelent) instead.

The ONLY way in which the government will say which doctors you can see is having incompetent doctors struck off (and possibly jailed if they're negligent).

And the money saved in not having to pay private healthcare more than makes up for the "new" tax (actually, just a few dollars extra on your normal tax bill).

[BattyDem]

47. I know ... it doesn't make sense

Universal healthcare would actually give most people MORE choices because right now, insurance companies tell us which doctors we can see, what tests we can have and what medications they will pay for. I also don't understand the big deal about a "new" tax to pay for it because we will no longer be paying huge premiums, high deductibles and endless copays. In the long run, we'll save money. No system is perfect ... but ours is terrible. :-(

[jberryhill]

50. What's really funny about that line...

...is that the vast majority of private health plans in the US, with the exception of old-fashioned and dying gold-plated plans, involve someone telling you what doctors you can see.

[HughBeaumont]

46. You ask anyone opposed to it and they'll give you one of two answers:

1. The RED MENACE one ("You mean soshulized med'cin'?? THAT's just crazy talk. This is Murka, not Comm'nist Canaduh!")
2. The veiled racist one ("Why should I pay for some sittin-on-her-ass welfare queen and her nine crack babies??")

Yet it's perfectly OK to burn through 1/3 of a billion dollars a day to kill soldiers, Iraqis and make piles more cash for people like Lee Raymond and Dick Cheney.

Oooooooookay. Guess it's better than being like them Yurpee-ins or them syrup eaters up North.

Yeah, so go ahead with that profoundly sensible, American "free market", Big Insurance/Big Pharma-controlled solution. Go ahead and pay much more than you would under universal health care and receive shittier coverage. Keep believing the "dying on waiting lists" and "government chooses everything" Reaganite bullshit propaganda myths. Hope you don't get cancer or anything like that, because you'll go bankrupt and then die. That's not a problem, is it?

Elizabeth Warren said in the additional footage of Sicko regarding the current private insurance ripoff masquerading as health coverage: "Unless you're a multi-millionaire, you're not safe." Think about it, lurking Repukes and tell me if it's still worth it to keep bombing a nation that did nothing to us.

Of course, we all KNOW what they'll say . . .

[Hissyspit]

9. My British girlfriend I used to have would bitch and moan about the system

in Britain every time she had to go to the doctor. Then I would tell her that I could not get that appointment and would not get that service even if I could because I could not afford it, and that many Americans can't.

Then she would say that Americans were crazy and our system sucked.

[Prophet 451]

16. Moaning is the British hobby

It's one of the few things we do really well: Tea, cricket, real ale and moaning. That said, for all we moan about pretty much everything, every time someone raises the possibility of privatising the NHS (it's raised by some nutcase MP every couple of years), they're shouted down and voted out of office.

[Hissyspit]

59. I felt real at home in England!

:)

[Dirty Hippie]

10. I currently pay

about 360 per month for my health insurance, about 300 for my daughters and 460 for my disabled sister's.

Even 10% of my wages would be a huge reduction in cost for me.

[superkia]

11. Maybe your government is run BY the people, FOR the people...

ours isn't. Our government is about controlling its people and taking care of the wealthiest people while the rest of us do the physical work so they can enjoy the easy life.

[Prophet 451]

21. Not exactly

It's not so much that our politicians are more inherantly noble than yours but the tie between the politician and their constituency is much stronger and much more direct so it's easier to hold 'em accountable if they screw up. Even the PM represents a constituency (Blair was Sedgewick, I don't know what Brown's is). It's not exactly an enforceable rule but it's universally expected that a politician will hold an open surgery for his constituents (a meeting where any constituent can turn up and ask questions) at least once a month so if they don't do the right thing, they can expect to catch hell about it at their next surgery.

[superkia]

22. WOW! Thats pretty cool, so the people can actually voice their...

opinion on political issues? If people speak out in groups, they aren't labeled domestic terrorist or thrown in jail for speaking up? I wish we could get it like that here, even if you get involved peacefully here, you will most likely, at least be added to some terrorist watch list or something.

[Prophet 451]

25. Yep

You'd only get added to some list if you did something crazy like threatening the MP. Our local MP, an "Old Labour" chap called Mark Fisher used to hold his surgerys in the local university's coffee shop. He voted against our version of the IWR and got shouted at by several people during his next surgery.

Here' we have a system set up where you can fax or email your MP directly and make your voice heard. Whether the MP's read the emails themselves varies but as an example, I emailed Mark Fisher to congratulate him on voting against the IWR and four days later, I got a personally written and signed letter from him thanking me for my support and agreeing with several of the points I'd raised. From the people I talk to around the country, this seems fairly common. The PM, Leader of The Opposition and the Cabinet don't usually respond in person (which is understandable given their workload) but most other MPs do.

Oh, and the PM's website (10downingstreet.gov.uk) has an area for submitting petitions to affect current legislation. Example: One of the petitions and public pressure just forced Brown to allow a free vote over the latest genetic experimentation bill.

Public marches and protests are also accepted as part of the social contract between government and governed. The only proviso is that if more than X number are expected, the local police force are informed so they can redirect traffic. Peaceful protesters have nothing to fear. During the massive protests in London just before the Iraq War, less than a dozen people were arrested (you always get a few who turn violent).

[dazzlerazzle]

12. costs of covering everyone

I believe that if you entering the work force, and seven and one half cents out of every single dollar you earn is taken out of your wages, and you get health care all of your life, it would be the best investment you could make. There couldn't be anyone making a living in the United States that would be exempt.

[Prophet 451]

17. Making a decent living anyway

Here, the first £5,500 (or thereabouts) you earn is completely tax-free and the rest is progressively taxed. That said, you're covered for life even if you never pay a penny into the system (for example, the life-long disabled).

[sutz12]

13. The idea that the US doesn't have universal health care is a myth...

We just have the most inefficient and perverted way to pay for it, and one often has to threaten violence to get it. :)

YOur plan sounds great.

[Sgent]

55. your wrong

try getting chemo as a cancer patient. You can't w/o insurance or cash on the barrelhead.

This is one example amongst many, but the point stands.

[calimary]

14. I would be willing to pay as much as it would take to make sure EVERYONE was

covered. Whatever that is.

If we spread it out over a few tens of millions of taxpayers it won't be crushingly oppressive for the vast majority of us. And what we'd save on the other end in terms of medical costs and the trickle-down from the bankruptcies that too many Americans face because they can't pay their medical expenses and it puts them under - would be IMMEASURABLE.

[Prophet 451]

18. Depends on which model you want to follow

Under teh British model, you'd pay around $2,000 a year, French model (which also covers dental because it doesn't have that bloody loophole) is around $3,000 and the German system, which is positively luxurious (the British and French models tend toward functional to keep costs down) would be around $4,000 a year. The money is pooled, administered by career civil servants quietly and effciently (which costs around 3% of the budget) and everyone's covered for everything from cradle to grave, even if they never paid a penny into the system for whatever reason.

Here, no-one ever declares bankruptcy due to medical costs. The family income might take a small hit while they're ill (you get statutory sick pay while you're ill but that's a bare minimum figure) but the NHS covers all the costs of the medical treatment itself.

[sandnsea]

19. Companies have paid for insurance

Which is why people here don't understand how much it really costs. If people had to pay for the full cost, they would probably choose a different type of coverage.

[newfie11]

23. Some companies pay, some don't pay anything at all.

[Mountainman]

24. It may not be perfect but so is not being able to get health care at all.

I think we need a two tiered system. One for those who can pay for the best treatment and the rest of us. The problem will be paying doctors enough to treat the rest of us.

[eridani]

51. It isn't possible to get the best treatment just by paying more for it

The richest 1/2 of Americans are sicker than the poorest 1/5 of Britons. Ration care by price, and doctors get less practice doing complicated procedures. The single most important factor that predicts whether you survive a complex operation is how many of that procedure the hospital performs in a year. Fewer procedures (can't let those damn poor people have any) means less competence.

[Bigmack]

26. How 'bout free Med School...

... and nursing school? To be paid back with an agreed-upon number of hours of work in public hospitals/clinics over the twenty years after graduation.

The way the US system is set up now, med school is so expensive that docs run up huge loans during school. The only way to pay back is to "maximize revenue" in the first years of practice.

[Prophet 451]

30. We have a similar thing here

Here, you can get a standard student loan for med school but, if you agree to devote a certain amount of your hours to treating NHS patients, you can get most of that loan written off (don't have the exact figures to hand). Teachers get a similar deal.

Of course, since the NHS is universal, private insurance is rare here and most doctors spend most of their careers caring for NHS patients.

[pitohui]

27. wow, you really pay only 5-7 percent of income, that's amazing!

it isn't just that the usa pays more for worse care or sometimes for no care -- it's that we pay WAY WAY WAY more

i don't want to give financial details but even though we have insurance through my husband's employer just our share of what we have to pay is way more than 7 percent of income

i went for 15 years with no insurance or care at all, and there were years when even tho he was working (at the same job) my husband could not pay his share of the insurance, so that he was going without health insurance or care as well

[Prophet 451]

31. Well, that's on an average income

Since it's collected as part of taxes, the wealthy pay far more than 5% and the very poor (i.e. the unemployed) pay far less or nothing at all (but they're covered anyway).

[devilgrrl]

28. Nobody seems to have an issue with spending Billions a week on a fake war.

:popcorn:

[Prophet 451]

34. Quite

I just worked this out. Assuming the US could do universal healthcare for the same roughly $2000 annual cost as the NHS and assuming the US population at 300 million (my schoolboy maths likes round figures), the total cost of covering the entire population would be around 600,000,000,000 or six hundred billion.

That sounds like a lot. However, according to Wiki, it's less than the annual military budget and far less than US citizens spend individually on healthcare (aprox. $2.26 trillion annually).

[ileus]

45. we spend in 5 days in iraq, what we spend in Africa for a year.

it's a real war, don't be mistaken...for fake reasons.

[Jed Dilligan]

29. I make $46,000 (supposedly) this year, highest wage in my lifetime

2 grand would be a little steep for me because of my student loan debt. I don't think that's as big a problem for middle class people in your country. I could probably squeeze it out but it would hurt. I would be more comfortable paying half that. Does the UK have progressive taxation so that richer people pay a higher percentage?

[Prophet 451]

32. Of course

The first £5,500 (roughly, I forget the exact number) you earn is entirely tax-free. After that, you start paying tax. For the very wealthy, your income tax can rise to just over 40% (plus 11% National Insurance (our version of Social Security)).

However, you also have to remember that firstly, there's no need to buy private insurance and secondly, student loan repayments are much, much lower here. By law, they can never go above 9% of your income, no matter how much you earn and they're usually far less. If you never earn more than £15,000 a year (roughly $30,000), you never pay it back at all (you're considered to not have the means to repay it).

[Jed Dilligan]

35. God damn. I was making $20-24,000 throughout most of my twenties

and coughing up $200 a month. I went back to school to increase my income, but it also increased my debt.

Right now I'm one of those evil uninsureds, though I found a plan that looks semi-affordable (there are many "plans" out there that cost money and provide nothing) and I'm working on that. The forms are an ultra-intrusive nightmare--they actually ask you to incriminate yourself (have you ever taken illegal drugs in your life is one of the questions).

[Prophet 451]

36. Geez

Here, your doctor will only ask you about illegal drugs if you either need help getting off them (we have a system of rehab courses run by the NHS) or they're interfering with your treatment. Even if you tell him, he's only allowed to tell law enforcement if you're either a danger to others (i.e. your drug problems have made you a violent crazy), with a court order or with your permission (for example, you want him to testify about your depression at your divorce hearing).

When I was in my teens, I smoked quite a bit of pot. My doctor must have known because I made no secret of it but apart from the standard lecture about the damage smoking would do to my health (here, pot is almost universally mixed with tobacco for smoking), simply didn't care. Hell, my employment counseller (person you see if you're unemployed for more than six months to help you get additional training, training on interviews or whatever) asked if I did any kind of drugs, outright said they took my occasional pot smoking for granted and was far more concerned with getting me help to get off my painkiller addiction (I've now been clean for seven years).

The NHS only asks questions when they actually affect your treatment. A quick Q-and-A session is part of the standard check-up (recommended but not required every six months) but it generally consists of whether you smoke, if you're drinking more than is healthy, if you're sexually active (gay or straight) and so on, all stuff that would or could directly affect your health.

BTW, I just worked it out and my student loan repayments come to about 4% of my annual income. It's on a sliding scale so if my income goes up, my repayments go up but no matter what, they can never go over 9%.

[Jed Dilligan]

37. And I expect the answers don't affect your rates

After all, isn't that what the taxes on liquor and tobacco are supposed to do?

[Prophet 451]

38. Yep

The rates are the same regardless since they're collected through taxes. The single biggest earner for the Treasury is the "sin taxes" i.e. taxes on tobacco (a pack of Marlboros costs around £5.50, about £4.75 of that goes to the Treasury), booze (around £1 on a bottle of spirits, perhaps 10p on a pint of beer) and gambling (9% tax, payable either on your stake or winnings, better's choice). There used to be a tax on contraceptives as well but that was abolished in the eighties as part of the fight against HIV/AIDS and these days, you can get condoms free from any doctor or hospital.

[eridani]

52. Euros are really nutz about their pot-smoking procedures

In Amsterdam, we quickly learned that if you wanted a pre-rolled joint without tobacco, you had to ask for an "American" joint.

[Prophet 451]

62. I know

I have a feeling it's because we had crap weed for so long. For years, the pot we got here was smuggled in the diesel tanks of fishing trawlers and similar methods and tasted like crap so the only way to make it palatable was to mix it with tobacco.

Of course, that's Britain. Why the rest of Europe tends to do the same is beyond me.

[GOPBasher]

33. Yes, Europe definitely does health care better. I wish we'd

have system like France's.

[BigDaddy44]

39. Your math is wrong

That roughly 5% isn't for your whole family... its per person. A family of 6, like mine, means $12,000 out of $48,000, or 25%.

[Prophet 451]

41. Misunderstanding

Yes, the 5% is per person but that's a share of the total NHS burden, not an additional 5% per person in your family.

I'm not sure that made sense so here's an example to better illustrate (I'm using both UK NHS figures and UK tax system here. If my maths is wrong, please feel free to correct me):
48,000 - Earnings
- 11,000 Personal Allowance (that part is tax-free, it's actually higher for families but I don't have the figures to hand)
= 37,000
- 20% Income tax (I'm assuming nothing to write-off and no exemptions which I know is wrong because there's a small break for each child) = 29,600

That means you pay $7,400 annual, your family is covered for any possible health problems and you're left with (11,000 personal allowance + 29,600 after tax =) $40,600. That's very roughly and I know for a fact that I've missed out both child tax credits (a small tax break for each child after the first) and the married couples bonus to personal allowance.

Does that make sense now?

[Greyhound]

48. Not one goddamn penny. We already pay more than anybody else

and have shit to show for it. We are already paying for it and more, so I'm not willing to pay one fucking penny more.

[eridani]

53. With single payer, you don't have to.

We are ALREADY PAYING for universal health care; we just aren't GETTING it.
--Dennis Kucinich

[Greyhound]

57. 'Zactly.

Every plan we hear about today is nothing but a huge corporate giveaway that in exchange for billions more of our dollars might get some more care for some people and ensures even more $$ for the leaches.
:grr:

[Prophet 451]

64. The only figures that need knowing

Amount needed to fund healthcare for ENTIRE US population (using NHS formula) - $600 billion
Amount spent annually on healthcare by Americans as individuals - $2.26 Trillion

And of course, the second figure also has a lot of people uninsured and a lousy standard of care.

Amount of budget spent on admin costs for private insurance - 20-30%
Amount of budget spent on admin costs for NHS - around 3%

Oh, and the career civil servants who administer the NHS do so quietly and efficiently, with minimal fuss, are well-paid and get benefits and decent pensions.

Number of Americans lacking health coverage - 40-50 million (figures vary)
Number of Britons lacking health coverage - 0

I'm not gloating here, I'm bewildered as to why Americans put up with it. Granted, the NHS isn't perfect and we bitch and moan about it like we do about everything else but whenever some lunatic MP suggests privatising it, they're shouted down and voted out of office and if any government really tried it, there'd be rioting in the streets. Americans though, put up with a crappy service that costs a fortune, doesn't cover a good portion of the population, doesn't even give good service to the ones it does cover and involves some corporate suit deciding if you live or die. This strikes me as, frankly, bugfuck insane. Sure, people die under the NHS but they die despite the doctor and surgeon doing their best to save them, not because they weren't rich enough.

[Greyhound]

91. Because we're sheep.

Terrified of everything and fearing the "unknown" even more. We also labor under the delusion that "someday it will be me". Care to sponsor a desperate refugee?

[magellan]

49. You're a star

Thank you for laying out national health care for everyone. I lived in the UK for years and while the NHS had (and still has) its problems, it's a darned sight better than the hideously abusive system we've got.

I've had it with paying thou$and$ a year only to see the price increase annually even though we haven't used the stupid policy, forcing us to take yet a higher deductible to keep the cost down to what we can afford.

[OneBlueSky]

54. U.S. healthcare is as corrupt as U.S. politics . . .

in the U.S., healthcare is a commodity, just like breakfast cereal or laundry detergent . . . the companies that provide it do so in a way that maximizes their profits and externalizes their costs . . .

the only solution to the healthcare crisis is to remove the profit motive . . . the liklihood of that ever happening are zero and none . . .

[tavalon]

56. What you are saying is that we are easily manipulatable by the powers who want to ocntinue

the money making insurance scam.

It didn't really become obvious to me until January of this year, when my partner and our ex both ended up on high deductable insurance with HSA's. Our child has many health issues so we aren't the demographic helped by the new system (I;m unsure if there is a demographic helped out by this draconian new insurance). It's very likely that under the old system, we paid close to 2 -3 thousand. We've paid that already this year and we get no help from the insurance until we hit our cap of $6000.00. Unfrickingbelievable.

[leftofthedial]

58. since it is taxes that pay for it and we will pay taxes whether we get it or not,

it doesn't really "cost" anything. We could easily eliminate most spending on war and weapons and pay for it. And improve our national security at the same time. Making the super wealthy and corporations actually pay their taxes would be a big help too.

As many have stated, we already pay for universal, single-payer health care (and then some). We just don't GET it.

[Prophet 451]

68. Some figures for you

Amount spent on US military budget last year: $610 billion (not counting the Iraq war or secret projects from the discretionary budget). This is actually higher than the rest of the world combined.

Amount required to cover entire populace under NHS model: $600 billion aprox.
Amount required to cover entire population under French model (generally accepted as the best): $900 billion aprox.
Amount spent on private insurance annually by Americans: $2.26 trillion.

The majority of US corporations pay no tax at all. Around 5% play the tax code like a harp and arrange matters so government owes them money. Just closing the loopholes in the tax code would net tens of billions each year. Overhauling the tax code so it was understandable by humans would net far more. What would net most is revising the American view of government's function from "protecting business" to "serving the people".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. I already pay $2500 a year for NOTHING

because my insurance has such a high deductible, and then there's a 20% copay after I meet my deductible. My maximum out of pocket costs are limited, but potentially, I could be charged 25% of my annual income for medical care if I developed a serious condition.

When I was in England last summer, I made a point of talking to people about the NHS. The most striking story was of a woman whose GP suspected cancer (she didn't tell me where) when she went in for her annual check-up. She was referred for tests (two days later) and had surgery two weeks later.

But otherwise, people seemed satisfied, their major complaint being that Blair hadn't undone any of Thatcher's "reforms," such as privatizing the cleaning and kitchen workers in hospitals, and had added some outrages of his own, like closing hospitals that local communities depended on for emergency care. (As in, "Don't get a heart attack if you live here, because the nearest emergency room is now in the next town.")

According to your description, I could pay about what I pay now in nearly useless insurance premiums and get covered for everything except dental care and a modest charge for prescription drugs.

Sounds great!

[Prophet 451]

61. Don't get me started on Blair

I'm slightly biased: I never liked the smarmy bastard, never voted for him and couldn't wait to see him gone. My father and I actually did an e-mail chorus of "Happy days are here again" when he was forced to resign.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

71. Your plan probably doesn't cover mammograms or pregnancy either.

Those are riders that cost extra on most plans.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. I don't know--

I'm past worrying about pregnancy, and no tests are covered before the $5,000 deductible anyway.

[Fireweed247]

63. Do Europeans pay the amount we do for car insurance?

It seems to me that universal health care should result in a reduction of car insurance. Most of the coverage for car insurance is for the amount one would have to pay to cover medical bills in the event of an accident. If we were only insuring only the price of the car, the cost of insurance should be much much lower.

[Prophet 451]

66. Let me see...

I don't drive (I work from home and live in an inner-city with good public transport) so I'm pulling this from the AA's website:

Average car insurance cost (assuming no no-claims bonus, 3+ years of clean license and an average family car): around £600 (roughly $1200). That covers accident, third-party (i.e. someone else smashes into you), fire and theft. You can knock 10-20% off that by buying online and if you go out of your way to minimise your risks (i.e. 4+ years no-claims bonus, car alarms, immobilisers, etc), you can get it down to under £300.

Car insurance is compulsary here and very carefully regulated so it's massively competetive and companies are constantly trying to undercut each other's prices.

You also must pay road tax (£120 a year for an average family car) which goes directly to the upkeep of infrastructure.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

65. Lets talk about the far from perfect par a bit more ok..

"Waiting lists for MRI scans in Derby have been reduced to 12 weeks."

12 weeks for an MRI is now *doing good* in England..

Serious voices in England are talking about reducing available services of the elderly, overweight, and smokers.

[Prophet 451]

67. Yes, they are but it won't happen

First off, it's legally dubious due to teh social contract the NHS has with the population. Everyone pays in and has a right to expect care because of it. If someone is refused care, their taxes wouldn't go down and you violate the social contract. Also, it's been established by many, many high court decisions that NHS trusts have a legal "duty of care" to their residents. And "serious voices" seems to mean mainly Patricia Hewitt who's slightly to the right of Ghenghis Khan.

Secondly, the situation in Derby is considered a scandal, not average.

Thirdly, I'll fully admit the NHS has faults. Some things could be done far better, no arguement there. So use the French model instead which is damn near perfect. I'm using the British model purely because that's the system I'm most familiar with and have the most data on, not because I'm claiming it's the best.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

69. French? Canadian?

Although France is a modern, developed country, which spends nearly 10% of the gross national product on healthcare and has a highly praised level of medicine, the number of modern imaging scanners, such as CT (595), MRI (182), and PET (<5>), is quite low when compared to other European countries.

-

Based on a study of 8,030 cardiac patients over a two-year period, the Canadian Medical Journal reported (November 2002) that the average wait time for cardiac catheterization after being referred by a primary physician was 27 days, and that 50 people died while waiting.

The total waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, increased slightly this year; rising to 17.9 weeks in 2004 (from 17.7 weeks in 2003).

-

And more on england:

Some patients have had to wait nearly two years for hospital tests in North Staffordshire, according to a survey. Patients can wait between 10 weeks and nine months for a scan at two hospitals in Worcestershire, and nearly a year at University Hospital Birmingham. The government target is a maximum 18-week wait from referral to treatment by 2008.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

73. And if you don't have health insurance here in the US, you'll wait forever. nt

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

77. Im not saying we dont need to fix our system

I'm saying we need not look to Europe and Canada who themselves have broken systems..

We need to expand Medicare to make sure all Americans without insurance are covered, we do not need to bury what is good about our system to do that..

[Lars39]

79. Europe and Canada have broken healthcare systems?lol

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

82. Yes, they do..

Canadian patients have had to be air lifted to the US for urgent care because of a lack of beds, a kid with cancer in remission had to wait six months for an ct scan and:

12 weeks to wait for an MRI in parts of england, going literally months! trying to get treated... To you this is not broken?

[Lars39]

86. You post citeless exceptions.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

90. Look again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/4536610.stm

12 weeks for mri

Ill have to dig around for the kid and the patients flown to the US, Ill get back to you..

[mrreowwr_kittty]

81. I completely agree re: expanding Medicare

However, you do realize that biggest argument used against it will be the supposed "flaws" of European and Canadian systems.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

84. Perhaps but its easier to shoot down those issues

than to talk to the 310 million people who *do* have health insurance and tell them they can look at 12 week wait times for medical test in some areas where they are now getting 5 business days.

When you take the private out of medicine you take out both the bad parts and the good parts. The good parts being a system better equipped than any other in the world! When my Daughter had an allergic reaction at a young age I saw a doctor, had blood test done, and had an epi-pen issued within a week...

I know that I am blessed with good insurance and I would like medicare to be expanded so other Americans can know if they get cancer the 3k price of each chemo shot will not lead to their death, if they need a transplant they will *know* that the money is not an issue! You can sell that to Americans far more than government control of their health..

He the govt is here to help you if you need coverage but we are not going to mess with what you have if you like that more..

[Prophet 451]

74. I know about North Staffs, I live here

Whether the number of imaging scanners is low is irrelevant. What matters is how they're being used. Based on France's standards of care, they seem to be being used very effectively.

What has Canada got to do with it?

The NHS is not perfect, I'm not arguing that. It's been underfunded and mismanaged since Thatcher, no-one's denying that so why you feel the need to bring it up is beyond me.

Finally, are you arguing against the way individual nations do socialised medicine or against the concept itself? All nations have faults, no system is entirely perfect but ANY of the systems is superior to the current American system where 40-50 million people have no healthcare at all.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

78. The concept itslef..

Lets create and properly fund entitlements for people who are uninsured but the idea of the government going beyond that in terms of controlling health care is not good.

[Prophet 451]

80. Then we have little to say to each other, peace with you n/t

[Lars39]

72. I do without MRIs because I can't afford them at $4,000 each.

MRIs don't cost near that in the UK.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

85. So why choose between

12 weeks or not at all? 12 weeks can kill you if you are looking for a tumor!

Why not just properly fund medicare? and leave the practice of medicine private..

[Lars39]

88. I'm not on Medicare...and that is what I pay *with* insurance.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

70. Paying a set percentage of your income isn't as progressive as I'd like.

But it's much better than the very regressive private system we have now.

I'd prefer a single payer system directly funded from income taxes. That way the wealthy would shoulder a bigger share of the burden, as they should. They benefit from having healthy workers.

[Prophet 451]

75. Poor phrasing on my part

You don't pay a set percentage. We have a progressive income tax like most nations and the NHS is funded with part of the revenue from that. The $2000 or 5% figure is an average based on the amount the average family with an average income would pay in taxes.

The rich pay far more than the average. The highest bracket gets up to 40% income tax plus 11% National Insurance (our version of Social Security). The very poor (long-term unemployed, disabled) pay nothing at all but are covered by the system regardless.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

76. Oh okay!

That's definitely something we should get going over on this side of the pond. Thanks for the information on the NHS! :hi:

[Prophet 451]

83. Never a problem :) n/t

[Vinca]

89. Your system sounds heavenly.

We dropped health insurance when it hit $12,000 a year with a $5,000 deductible. That was 4 years ago. Now that we're even older, I imagine it would be higher still.