Speak for yourself - I haven’t seen the numbers crunched over various income levels, but I’m not sure I’d find paying higher taxes for more equal access to health care and higher education “disturbing.”
Average tax for a Dutch citizen is 12% higher than for an average U.S. citizen (38% vs 25%). I get a tax refund on a big part of the interest I pay for my mortgage though, and my (private) health insurance sets me back a little over 160 euros a month. Your taxes are unrealistic now though, as your pal Bush is running a huge deficit (I remember the days where Republicans stood for deficit reduction, which is, in fact, a very good idea most of the time).
What we get for that 12% difference is very clearly worth it, in my book. The cost of health insurance in the U.S. alone matches the difference for most people, and I can sleep at night knowing that people who are unfortunate enough to not have a job still have decent health coverage, that I’ll never be involved in a car accident in which the other doesn’t have an insurance, or that I won’t have a half decent place to live if I lose my job (no jokes about people living on welfare, we take that issue seriously, trust me), etc.
@milroy, since all residents insure the same minimum spec health care they are like an insurance that is covered by a larger amount of people, there’s no paperwork hassle when chaning employer or losing your job, no separate provisions need to be made for people who are not insured, no lawsuits need to be started just to try to get some of the costs covered, better control over the prices of hospitals and so on.
WeirdDave, has your wife been following this thread? I understand (correct me if I’m wrong) that she is in the same business as you and that she is Canadian. I would be interested in hearing her experience with Canadian vs. American health care and how it relates to your guys’ jobs (insurance).
Also, tell her that our mutual acquaintance who’s in Iqaluit says hi.
Nope, I’m not reading it. He let me know of this post. Do you mean Hunter? And NO, I’m not in health insurance. I was in Commercial P&C in Canada only.
Sounds like I would be paying an additional $7,000 per year with this plan (for likely inferior service) - no thanks. I’ll pay for my own insurance - let others do the same.
Ginger: actually, his ex-wife, Carol.
According to this dispassionate private sector comparison of different systems, the Dutch pay about $2700 USD per annum per capita for their health care.
That compares with the American catch-as-cat-can system’s per capita expenditure of $4300.
Again – everyone’s covered – for significantly less, with equivalent care (despite your misplaced presumption of superior care.) With a system that has both private and public components.
You guys could do a lot better.
I hardly think my presumption of superior care is misplaced.
As for the annual $2,700 per capita - that means a married couple would be spending $5,400 per year. Still considerably more than I am currently paying.
Too bad the article doesn’t compare the waiting times required for treatment of different ailments - I would be interested in seeing that comparison as well.
Should also compare income ranges for the medical staff. Are they comparable? If not, how would you propose equalizing?
Are you including the portion of your taxes that go to Medicare/Medicaid?
Another question regarding the Dutch system.
If participation is mandatory, how do the unemployed contribute? If they don’t contribute, does their $0 lower the overall per capita average (in other words, is the per capita cost even higher if you only factor in those that are paying?)
Pointless road you’re traveling there, Flicky, as 15% of US residents aren’t insured, and another proportion isn’t sufficiently insured. And I don’t think the additional social costs of bancruptcy due to insufficient insurance coverage are even factored in here. Oh, and family coverage discounts exist here too.
Still didn’t answer my question of how the unemployed contribute to the mandatory system.
Also noticed one additional gem of information included in the article:
Sounds like my concerns of inferior service are legitimate after all.
Well I gave you an intelligent reply to what I considered a rethorical question. You’re weren’t actually seriously thinking that the unemployed contribute something?
We had some waiting list issues in the past, but this new system has done a great deal in solving them (rarely more than 3 weeks now), as the private insurance companies have worked to find intelligent alternatives - other hospitals than the nearest one which people would generally sign up for, or even hospitals in other countries (the costs - including travel and stay - of which they then of course cover - a right guaranteed by European Law).
This as part of their healthy market drive in winning the customer’s favor, but without the ill side-effects of the U.S. system.
The U.S. is not without it’s problems either, for instance the waiting time for making a doctor’s appointment over there.
Well, yes I was.
flickster, how much do you think the unemployed contribute to Medicare in the US?
For the most part, the recepients of Medicare are no longer considered to be in the primary workforce and therefore not counted as unemployed.
The vast majority of the unemployed are not Medicare recipients, so it’s not an apples to apples comparison.
I’ve always felt that the cry of “waiting list!” is a pretty poor argument against socialized health care.
It might be more compelling if waiting list issues were typically problematic under socialized systems. Democracies being what they are, they ought to be self-correcting – and usually are.
The single fastest way for a political party to get tossed out on its ear up here is to have a negative impact on health care. Canadians aren’t any more constitutionally disposed to tolerate an unreasonable tax burden, either. The system tends toward affordable, reliable care.
When there are waits, they are tolerable-- and I don’t see them as problematic, because they’re prioritized by need rather than coverage.
As with any product or service, you can positively affect delivery time by increasing cost. If you doubled the prices at the supermarkets, you’d spend half as much time waiting in line. That’s a great convenience, but is it worth it? You get half as much food for your money, and you have to live with the knowledge that people are starving. “Woohoo! I got in and out with my potatos in under ten minutes. Oh, frabjous day!”
Why boast of a health care system that provides slightly snappier service by restricting access to it? “I’m perfectly happy paying much, much more for the same services than everyone else in the developed world, because this way there are no poor people in line in front of me.”
Lovely.
yes, there are waiting times , which Americans find intolerable, for those of us in “socialist system” countries. Yes, that means the service is inferior. I have waited 3 weeks for a test procedure (non-emergency) .But I have never , never,never worried about how I would pay for my care.
When a family member was hospitalized for 4 weeks, I started to get worried about how much it was costing–because my daily visits to the hospital meant that I had to use the pay parking lot which charges by the hour.
4 weeks of (very scary) care for kidney failure–and my ONLY concern was the parking fee. Not one single form to fill out, not one payment of any kind, absolutely NO hassles or worries. The family was free to concentrate on the vital issue–the health of their loved one.
Have you ever spoken to an American family where a 4 week hospitalization didnt involve more conversations about money (and bankruptcy) than about the patient’s health?
Since the Screw Ya faction seems to be ignoring the empirical evidence, here’s an anecdote for them:
The whole waiting list whine is a red herring, anyway. My wife consistently has to wait a month for an MRI. When she was originally referred to the neurologist for a suspicious looking spot on her brain, it took three months to get in to see somebody.
That’s a quarter of year, folks.
And this was under our old, big employer, largest-provider-network-in-the-metro-area plan.
But here’s the thing:
Switching over to nationalized health insurance isn’t going to make a damn bit of difference in the waiting lists so long as the providers themselves aren’t nationalized. Well, it might make things better (less paperwork), or it might make things worse (more people being able to afford to go to the doctor), but in the grand scheme of things, I’d be willing to bet it’ll wash.
I’d also like to remind everybody about bullet point #2 in my OP. Here’s an update on health care reform from the White House:
Typical.
See, here’s the thing. I currently pay about $5000/yr for health insurance for a family of 4 (this does NOT include out of pocket costs, but these have been trivial). Using the $2700/per capita figure you posted above, I would pay over $10,000/year on health insurance under the socialized system you’re proposing ( assuming that the Dutch model works brilliantly and can be seamlessly applied to the U.S., which I doubt ). I was never very good at math, so could you please show me again how I’d be spending a lot less money? Thanks.
All the time. These conversations occurred with people who had the foresight to protect their families by taking their money and buying their own health insurance instead of bemoaning the fact that the government doesn’t take their money and do it for them.