The NHS & the United States of America

[FlashLackey]

here is an interesting way to compare Health care systems of 8 countries with similar economies and governments (USA, Japan, France, germany, Great Britain, Switzerland, Netherlands) - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=110997469

...seems USA spends more per person but with fewer people covered by the health care umbrella.

So, good if you are one of the covered group, but really tough if you are not.
(By FL figures, that is 3 out of 20 - 15%), and if you are hispanic, 6 out of 20 are not covered, and if black, 4 in every 20 are not covered).

davidp

<edit> I'll just wait for this link to be labelled socialist propaganda as well, shall I?

NPR is certainly on board with many socialist solutions to issues.

I've already agreed that we spend too much on health care. My contention is with people claiming that we have poor quality health care. We don't. In fact, I think we lead the world in health care quality and innovation, largely due to the amount we spend on it.

The 15% figure isn't right. Half of those people can afford health care but choose not to pay for it. So, it's more like 1.5 out of 20 that needs help (and that figure is debatable as well given what health care costs and what salaries they are counting as needing assistance).

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up race. Do you think the purpose of our health care system is to hurt people of certain races? It's not breaking news that the demographics include more minorities in lower income brackets. Is that supposed to make people feel different if people of specific races are without health care over others? Are uncovered white people less of a problem?

A lot of other things come out of National Insurance, such as your pension. You also receive money (and so does your employer) for unlimited sick days, which are unlimited – those are things your HMO does not cover. And do bare in mind that £200-odd that your employer pays you don't "get" otherwise, it's just a part of employing people in this country.

We have a similar system here in social security for retirement.

It's not a tax on your salary, so it's of no personal effect.

That, my friend, is an illusion.

If companies didn't have to pay it, they sure as hell wouldn't give it to you.

Why wouldn't they?

If their competitor does, they lose market share and make less profit. There's a reason there are employees in the first place. A company doesn't magically have products and decides to share income due to government mandate. A company needs to have workers and to pay them competitively in order to be successful. If there is a tax companies didn't have to pay, that typically manifests itself in more jobs and/or higher pay.

But the fact remains you have to pay for it soon as you're well enough, and if you didn't have insurance, you're ****ed.

Yes. For the small percentage of people who can't afford $160 a month for health insurance, they could end up in a situation where they had to file bankruptcy. That is a problem that both sides of the debate have offered solutions for.

Rather than paying $700 for a healthcare plan that sorts you out, why not pay $700 to sort the whole country out - and an 'insurance' policy that pays for your hospital, your sick pay, makes sure the company you work for isn't out of pocket and funds your pension when you retire? And you never, under any circumstances, have to get out your cheque book.

Because it doesn't perform as well. That and it costs more for people who want the "luxury" of choosing when they see a doctor and get treated, having a bathroom, etc.

United Kingdom, average annual per-person spending
$2,723

United States of America, average annual per-person spending:
$6,402

It's black and white, why has it taken so long for it to even be talked about again?

Yes. We spend too much. But, our quality of care is higher. The trick is to reduce spending as much as possible, without reducing the quality.

The subject has been debated consistently for as long as I can remember.

If we judged all private companies 1 year at a time and condemned them for having a red year.. we wouldn't have very many private companies.

I wasn't judging them based on one year. Are you not familiar with the other bad years and problems with the USPS?

FlashLackey, let's say the ‘United Health Service’ sprung up overnight. The government started taking $250 more tax off your paycheque, but you no longer need to pay anything for medical insurance. You could choose whichever UHS hospital you wanted and whenever you walked out, you would never have to take care of any bills or insurance, ever. Hypothetically, the UHS provides the same level of care that private hospitals do, using the same doctors, but you have to share a room with 3 other people.

Would you run straight out and buy private medical insurance?

No. But, the problem is that your hypothetical same level of care is not a reality. You can't even choose when you get treatment. If I have lung cancer, I don't want to wait on a list in order to receive radiotherapy to save my life. I would rather be able to control my health care decisions as a direct consumer. Government involvement into that equation is not necessary.