- Again, we werent comparing “per capita” anything. We were comparing **my personal individual costs.
**
No, you dont.
Per this months Consumer Reports the average employee pays about $1000 a year for his insurance. I thus pay about average.
I think he is trying to say is per capita in the US they spend more on health care than the UK or Canada. But lower taxes from your paycheck go to health care in the US. Where in the UK or Canada lower per capita but higher of taxes so the government takes more of your paycheck.
The US spends billions every year into health care a very large part of the GDP than any other country in the world but the US government takes less out of your paycheck and put into health care.
So if you made $60,000 in year in the US or say $60,000 in year in the UK you will pay more taxes in the UK out of that $60,000. Where in the US making $60,000 in year you will pay less taxes.
ah, ah, ah! you don’t get to dodge this. You can’t quote the taxation that I contribute and only quote the additional $120 payment that you make. That is not even apples and oranges, that’s apples and paintbrushes. You’ve yet to actually say how much (in total…including taxation) you pay for your healthcare.
Assume I have a £50k wage. You’ve just shown that £2666 of my taxes goes to healthcare. I have no reason to doubt that.
Now assume a USA citizen on the equivalent of £50k in US dollars.
Simple question, how much of the USA tax take on that amount goes to a health care system that you can’t even access? If you can’t quote that figure you haven’t got a leg to stand on.
I can access it. My employer based is better and cheaper, but I *could *access Obamacare or even Medi-cal.
But the number is pretty close to zero, except the 1.45% out for Medicare . That’s about all all I pay by taxes for healthcare, except for aid for the elderly, indigent or handicapped.
But you see it’s hard to compare. In the UK, you pay 18% for “healthcare” but another 15% for "welfare’ and 20% for “pensions”. But what is in those pie slices? Different than in our US pie slices.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/budget_pie_ukgs.php
Overall, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and ACAs: together accounts for about 25% of the US budget. However, “Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP” are also “welfare” programs or even “pension” programs in the case of medicare.
In any case, at my level of income a UK resident pays about 7000 UK pounds or $9100 more than I do. Even if you just consider that 18%, thats $1600 more a year. Which is about what I pay in insurance.
UKers pay more taxes. Those taxes pay for “free” healthcare. I pay less taxes and pay $120 a month for healthcare.
Well you’ve had it explained to you several times now and you seem determined to avoid answering straightforward questions regarding comparable scenarios.
You seem to magically assume that none of your taxes go toward paying for healthcare yet are happy to quote the amount in the UK that does. You are wrong. The figures I find for the USA income tax take is around £4.2 trillion, the amount being spent on the various healthcare schemes is about £1 trillion. You’ll have to explain to me how you come to the conclusions below.
you say
So not close to zero at all? If you are serious about making a straight comparison then you should find out what proportion of your tax contributions go towards healthcare.
you also say
which is confusing. Are you saying that if you only paid your taxes and no health insurance premiums you can get full access to healthcare? That seems at odds to previous explanations I’ve heard.
Because due to US Politics it’s suicide to call anything "welfare’, but a good 20% of the UK budget is called welfare.
Is medical aid to the elderly “welfare” or “healthcare”?
So, I can’t “answer straightforward questions regarding comparable scenarios” becuase the way the US budget is written we categorize things differently. Politics is never “straightforward”. But over all, I pay lots less taxes and more for healthcare, and for me, it’s way cheaper than if I lived in the UK.
Medi-cal is means based, I earn too much, but yes, it’s free access to healthcare in California. Obamacare is very cheap, often free for the poor.
So, in America we have free healthcare for the elderly (Medicare doesnt make everything free) and for the poor.
The only people in America suffering are the 10% without healthcare* and some % of those with employer provided plans which are inadequate. But everyone but the Poor in the Uk pay higher taxes. It’s a trade-off.
Mind you, I would like to see a American NHS type thing. I think it’s a good idea. But dont pretend it’s "free’ cause it aint.
- it used to be 20% but Obamacare closed the gap.
Because of act of incredible stupidity, I called an ambulance for myself. The ambulance transported me less than 3 miles.
After insurance, I was billed for $2000.
and yet somehow it is straightforward enough in both the UK and USA for you to make the bald assertions above?
Fine, well we can’t say we didn’t try. The straightforward fact is that you pay more for your healthcare in the USA…much more, than in the UK. You are never going to accept it even though it is a well established fact. The per-capita figures are not disputed so unless the magic money fairy is preventing your tax dollars being used for that purpose, believe me, you are paying more than me.
So we’ll just leave it there I think
Bullshit.
I’m self employed. I’d happily go back to my health insurance pre-ACA. I pay way more than I ever did for a shit plan with high deductibles.
I understand that many people were helped, and that’s cool, but some of us took it up the ass.
I did, when I was talking about* my personal situation. *
If you look a lttle closer at that link you’ll see that welfare consists of:
-family and children
-unemployment
-housing
-social exclusion
-R&D social protection
-social protection
These all seem to be unrelated to health care.
I’m not in the UK, but in the “privatized” healthcare system in the Netherlands. As always I can’t put it anymore simple as this: I never ever think about healthcare in terms of costs, and I don’t know anyone who does.
In my broader circle I know of quite a few people that have suffered from cancer or other nasty illnesses and it is often discussed; not once costs, coverage or money have been mentioned.
Myself, I pay about 100 euros a month (as does everyone, except people with little income) and hardly ever need medical care. After more than a decade wiithout any need for medical attention, I did have a few small issues the last year. I saw a total of 5 doctors (some while on holiday abroad) and had 3 courses of antibiotics supscribed (one of which I had a bad reaction to). In total I paid about 30 euros for the meds and nothing for the doctors.
I almost forgot, stuff like dental care and vaccinations (for holidays) are all covered by my plan as well.
I can’t reitterate this enough. When anyone gets ill here, the last thing on their minds is costs (or loss of income for that matter).
Of course it bothers us. We talk about it all the time. It’s on the front of every working American’s mind. It’s especially important to pensioners, who are all on Medicare, and the poor, who get subsidies from the Obamacare exchanges.
But now you’re moving the goalposts. You suggested that an ambulance ride could bankrupt someone. Sure, if they’re nearly bankrupt to start, and for whatever reason don’t have health insurance. But that’s hardly a dystopian nightmare. That’s just the presence of poor people.
It’s a shitty, expensive system over here, but it ain’t Somalia.
For what it’s worth, I pay $500/month for my whole family, plus a $3,000 deductible. That’s shitty, but manageable.
No thanks at all I would keep the US shitty health care system over free healthcare UK, Canada and Europe over month or two month waiting list there to see specialist, surgeon or get surgery done.
The way I work out how much the NHS costs me is to take the 18% or so of government expenditure that the NHS represents, and apply that to tax levels. So roughly 18% of 20% of taxable income (for most people) and 18% of 20% VAT: say 4% of taxable income (in my case, on a comfortable pension slightly more than average income, that would be roughly £900) and 4% sales tax.
But the other side of the equation is not just what I get out of it, but also the knowledge that I’m doing my bit to ensure it’s there to support everyone, even if that means waiting a bit longer for less acute problems (which hasn’t yet been my experience).
If you were a low-income family I suspect you’d think differntly.
In any case, private insurance is easily available in the UK. You can still get instant access to surgery and specialists plus the back up of the NHS for everyone and all for a price less than you currently pay in the USA.
I don’t think you understand how that works. In the rest of the developed world, access to specialists, surgery etc is prioritized by medical necessity. In the US there is an element of ability to pay in the equation.
On the average, I suspect you are better off in Europe. The system results certainly seems to argue that.
Your cite is admittedly better than mine, and does show shorter waits. However, it still shows longer waits than in the UK. 110 minutes in the UK as opposed to 135 minutes in the US. (Your 30 minutes wait time appears to be time until you are seen, rather than to fully treated.)
Just out of curiosity, what does BUPA (or whoever the industry leader is now) charge for their gold standard supplemental plans?
Scroll down to the bottom of this page:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/insurance/cheap-health-insurance
What we don’t know from those rough figures is the extent to which private insurance premiums may be affected by the knowledge that the NHS is there to pick up the pieces if anything goes wrong (or alternatively, the market for private insurance is mainly among people who are already more likely to need care and therefore increase costs for the private system).
Another point that leaps out at me is that paying from general taxation shifts the balance of costs within any individual’s overall lifetime costs: with insurance, it looks as though you pay less when you need less (but might well be able to afford to pay more), but inevitably it costs a lot more when you cost the insurance company more, irrespective of income. But paying through general taxation means you pay more when you can afford it (even if you don’t need so much from it at that time), but (unless your retirement income is very generous) less just at the time you are costing the system more. Of course, a wise person in a privatised system would be salting savings away for future health costs, but there are always competing demands on income.