The first bit is true, the second is totally subjective and a very sweeping statement. Do you object to paying slightly higher taxes (in fact I think we established there's about a knats whisker difference in take home pay compared to gross pay between the UK and the US) to enable those that can't afford basic healthcare needs to have them?

 

No, I actually don't object to paying higher taxes if it will actually end mankind's suffering. However, don't tell me that we can have free healthcare, job growth, higher taxes only for somebody else, economic prosperity, and a non-fattening-tastycake to eat all at the same time. If we want to provide healthcare for all, at least provide an honest assessment of the costs to the society for such a massive undertaking so that voters aren't fooled into voting for something they might regret.

No, I actually don't object to paying higher taxes if it will actually end mankind's suffering. However, don't tell me that we can have free healthcare, job growth, higher taxes only for somebody else, economic prosperity, and a non-fattening-tastycake to eat all at the same time. If we want to provide healthcare for all, at least provide an honest assessment of the costs to the society for such a massive undertaking so that voters aren't fooled into voting for something they might regret.

 

Well then we agree. As I said above I'm not interested in the politics of this, I only started the thread as I wanted to find out the differences between the UK and the US. It's clearly a hot potato and I'm not going to comment on the economics of it as it'll take the thread in the wrong direction.

To add a little more to how things work in the UK - it seems that our Air Ambulances are almost entirely charity funded (I think the London Air Ambulance gets some state money but not much).

 

 

 

Well I didn't start this as a political thread so hopefully it won't turn out that way...

 

That is either daft or disingenous considering it is one if the hotter political topics of our American friends.

That is either daft or disingenous considering it is one if the hotter political topics of our American friends.

In fairness you can have an opinion on the subject and share it without shouting "VOTE DEMOCRAT" or "VOTE REPUBLICAN" - He's looking for the attitudes and how it works in practice as opposed to which party people want to get in.

 

Regards,

Ró.

That is either daft or disingenous considering it is one if the hotter political topics of our American friends.

 

I don't appreciate being called an idiot, thanks. I don't see that many making this topic political at the moment.

The Republican Party is the only major political party in the developed world that takes the position that healthcare is a privilege and not a right: if you are poor and sick, you die. Just look at Mitt Romney's statements to his rich supporters:

 

"there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them."

 

Read it, Romney says people do not have a right to food, housing or healthcare. This goes back to the "thinking" of the Late Victorian era when 30 to 60 million people died from starvation. People were starving on the railroad tracks leading to warehouses filled with food. The sad thing was, there was enough food for everyone. But government policy would not allow it. (see the Late Victorian Holocaust) And the Republicans want to go back to that?

 

What is really sad is our health care system is not efficient. Brtions, for example, pay half as much per capita, cover everyone, and have better results.

 

The tax issue is something of a red herring. We pay for healthcare one way or another. It is not at all unusual for a person to pay $500 to $1000 per month for heathcare insurance. If we don't pay it, their employer may. But employers count this as an expense of hiring someone. I suspect that a healthcare tax would cost the typical person less, because one would no longer be required to purchase health insurance.

 

Also employer provided health insurance is something of a sick joke. If you get so sick that you can't work, you lose your health insurance.

 

Also people without health insurance get billed more than peope who have it. A person without health insurance will be charged four times as much as what would be billed to a health insurance company, and ten times as much as would be billed to the government Medicare of Medicaid programs. The people with the least are expected to pay more.

Yet the Republicans say that goverment healthcare is communist, wonder whos pocket their hands are in my guess is hospitals and insurance companys!

 

The truth is of course somewhere in between. In the UK, free treatment for emergency & non emergency medical cases at the point of need is virtually unlimited - unless you want to compare it with those who have the very best private medical insurance, who I'm sure get more pleasant facilities and better care.

 

On the other hand, given that In the UK merely breathing a word of criticism of the NHS - or more particularly the doctors & nurses that work in it - could well get you lynched, it's a real problem to ensure that the system works efficiently and effectively as it should. There are very few over here, even amongst the well heeled, right or left wing, who think we shouldn't provide medical care out of taxes but nobody wants to pay for waste & inefficiency.

Kevin, I don't think anyone is saying that healthcare is entirely free. There is a cost in higher taxes that I think those with state-funded healthcare have already identified (I have), and in Canada, we do pay monthly premiums depending on ability to pay and size of family (see here for premiums in BC). These premiums, by the way, vary from province to province--they may be more, they may be less, depending on the province or territory in which a Canadian lives.

 

Concerning the honest assessment of the costs to society ... is not the collective caring of individuals in need, regardless of their ability to pay, worth the cost to society? Is not the freedom from worry about paying huge medical bills, even going into debt, worth the cost to society?

In reality ro, it is pretty much inseparable from politics in America. And even more so into international politics when start people comparing with how they have it in other countries. You cannot escape the economic ad political aspects of this ad the topic is essentially economic and political.

Well I didn't start this as a political thread so hopefully it won't turn out that way...

I mentioned this only because up until now, only one person had briefly mentioned the "R" word...

 

...unfortunately, some folks just can't resist derailing what has been a perfectly interesting thread. :huh:

Hi.

 

To add a little more to how things work in the UK - it seems that our Air Ambulances are almost entirely charity funded (I think the London Air Ambulance gets some state money but not much).

 

I think you're right about the funding. I took this last weekend from the football field across the road from my house.

 

 

 

There's the phone number, feel free to donate-- you might need this chap sometime. If you're not in Wales, make a donation to your local service. I don't imagine the pilot or the paramedics get paid much for what they do. Think what size of donation would be needed just to keep the mechanical aspect of the service going.

 

I see National Insurance as just that-- nationalised insurance. We're legally obliged to insure ourselves against motoring accidents, we're legally obliged to insure ourselves against medical emergencies. It seems free at point of use, particularly in Wales where prescription drugs are 'free', but even unemployment benefit is taxed, and the unemployed pay NI too.

 

We hear a lot of complaints about the poor quality of the NHS. I suspect it's poor funding that's at the heart of the perceived failure, as the tiny NI contribution suggests. A couple of years ago my daughter was admitted to hospital via A&E. The astonishment on the face of the nurse doing the admissions duty (I don't work in a hospital-- I don't know what the job is called) when I thanked her the following day for saving my daughter's life told me all I needed to know about how badly treated NHS staff are both by their employer and by popular perception. I thought she was going to cry...

 

Best regards,

D

I mentioned this only because up until now, only one person had briefly mentioned the "R" word...

 

...unfortunately, some folks just can't resist derailing what has been a perfectly interesting thread. :huh:

 

Yup, look at Douglas's post a few posts above.

given that In the UK merely breathing a word of criticism of the NHS - or more particularly the doctors & nurses that work in it - could well get you lynched

 

Blimey! Which United Kingdom are you living in? Moaning about the NHS is a national pastime!

 

With two parents terminally ill with cancer, I've spent more time dealing with our health services in the last five years than I care for. It's a far from perfect system, mistakes get made, and there are one or two honest to god bad apples in the barrel (like Shipman). But I know my folks have had a ton of treatment and general support in their final years, which they certainly wouldn't have received had we been on the other side of the pond. It makes my blood boil to hear American politicians of any party slander our healthcare and compare it to the ##### and/or Communists.

 

Although the "If Stephen Hawking had to rely on British healthcare he'd have been left to die" comment one of them made did turn into pure comedy gold, when the good Professor replied pointing out that his medical care and continued existence was in fact courtesy of the NHS!

 

Yours apolitically

 

Dr V

Unfortunately, the issue is hopelessly entangled with politics. You have a major political party which wants to preserve the current system.

 

Also consider that my statements about the Republican party are true.

 

It is one thing to complain when someone is not telling the truth. It is entirely a different matter to complain when someone is telling the truth.

 

Perhaps this is part of the problem?

I doubt any american would give you an objection if you wanted to bring up tax to provide the correct health care system.

 

My dear friend....would that it were so.