Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is fun observing people clamor for a thing they have been told they want when all they are really doing is the bidding of those who make the rules. Your HC will be rationed, period, and you won't be able to keep your own doctor and you will pay higher premiums and experience delayed consultations and treatments. Enjoy! So long as your government is collecting revenue to provide it (and yes the ACA will lead to a single-payer system. You're proud of that)!
Americans only want HC because they have been told they do.
The middle class in socialized medicine countries shoulder the majority of the taxes for healthcare.
That's not the way the democrats in the USA want to pay for healthcare in the USA. We have a substantial population in this country who pay far less in taxes than the same population in other countries (middle class and lower middle class).
The UK's short term capital gains rate is significantly much less than the US's short term rates. It's 28% rate in the UK compared to almost 40% in the USA for the wealthy plus the wealthy have to have an additional "Medicare surtax" on the already high 40% short term rate. U are talking about a 43% short term capital gains rate compared to 28% for the UK.
And in other countries the capital gains rate are as low as zero to 20% short term rates.
That must be the one exception to the rule,because otherwise you must be kidding if you think taxes in the UK are lower than in the U.S.
The point I'm trying to make is obvious to all but perhaps you need special attention:
The first para from your post:
"Here is the thing about health care. It costs money. You can either pay for it directly, through an insurance company, or through markedly increased income/sales/VAT taxes. You will pay for it, one way or the other. The places that liberals point to as shining examples all have ridiculously higher tax burdens than we do."
To wit; you say nothing within your post that you're intending your comments to exclude any UHC country until you get to your second para where you still do not exclude any country but merely describe you have first hand experience with the European models.
To be more specific you stated very clearly that ALL UHC systems were subject to the same flaws. that being "ridiculously higher" taxes, to which I responded in the negative and you ignored.
Now as to a Liberal telling your what your were thinking.
Firstly; I'm not a Liberal. Secondly I would not presume to tell you what your're thinking. I would however, suggest; how are we to know what you are thinking if YOU do not tell us?
Stop with the Liberal vs Conservative nonsense. It's childish and boring.
What is boring is cherry picking a post to take things out of context and deliberately ignoring those key elements of the post that run counter to your assertions.
My entire post you reference:
Quote:
Here is the thing about health care. It costs money. You can either pay for it directly, through an insurance company, or through markedly increased income/sales/VAT taxes. You will pay for it, one way or the other. The places that liberals point to as shining examples all have ridiculously higher tax burdens than we do. So don't be confused by the notion of "free" health care. People are paying for it. The higher your income, the more you get to pay for another person's medical care. We already have that in the form of Medicare, but now the liberal crowd has determined we need to just go whole hog and move to European style socialized medicine. It is simply fiscally unsustainable. It doesn't work. The NHS is broke.
Your assertions that the care we receive is no better than other countries is just plain wrong. I have lived, not visited, but lived in 4 European countries, and have seen and in some cases had to use their health care systems. They are not close to the level care we have in the US.
You are not the only person to have lived in other countries. I have also lived and worked in Europe and I have family who live and work in Europe. And you are simply wrong in your assertions. Both from a personal/anecdotal perspective as well as in terms of the key indicators, their health care is just as good as ours and a lot cheaper.
But this isn't about their systems. This is about an American system that costs far far too much.
We are not getting value for money from our system. For every dollar we spend, 25% goes to administration because our system is horribly fragmented and inefficient. We pay far too much for meds and we pay grossly inflated prices for hospital visits and routine medical supplies.
Judging by your posts, your are totally hung up on liberal/conservative ideology. This isn't about ideology. This is about getting high quality health care at a reasonable price.
When you lived/worked in Europe, did you actually use their health care system, or did you use U.S. facilities like those found on military bases? Quite different animals. In the UK, my family and I had to use the British NHS. That was our primary means of health care. The pediatric care was horrible. I will leave it at that, it in no way compared to the level of care found in the US. A family member had to have an inpatient surgical procedure while we were there. It was like going back in time 50 years. The post surgical ward was literally 10 people crammed into a room that probably should have held about 6. It was so crowded that the beds were touching. The windows were open to the main thoroughfare outside with no screens. Nice to have flies all over the inside of a post surgical ward. There was a massive MRSA outbreak in NHS hospitals at the time. It was a systemic problem, not an isolated one.
It isn't at all about political ideology, it is about retaining personal choice and standard of care. Mentioning ideology once does not indicate that it is the primary focus of the discussion.
The pro-centralized health care crowd is quick to point out cost savings in comparison to the European models. What they fail to realize is large disparity in tax burdens between the US and places like Germany, Great Britain, France, Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. Britons pay much higher tax rates than we do. They, along with Germans, also pay Value Added Tax (VAT) on goods and services. Think of this as a sales tax on steroids. Most Europeans pay nearly four times what we pay for fuel. Bottom line, health care is expensive, and it must be paid for. In the US, we pay for it more directly, in most cases through an HMO or other health insurance program. In Europe, they pay for it through higher taxes. Pick your poison, but you will still be paying for health care.
Here is the thing about health care. It costs money. You can either pay for it directly, through an insurance company, or through markedly increased income/sales/VAT taxes. You will pay for it, one way or the other. The places that liberals point to as shining examples all have ridiculously higher tax burdens than we do. :
This seems to be where the mental short-circuit happens. You assume that since places with UHC often have high taxes, those extra taxes go to fund the health care. An unsuppored association between two unrelated things.
But these coutries also have many other benefits, which may include free university education, 5-6 week vacations, state pensions, strong unemployment benefits, a years materity leave every time you have a kid, subsidized daycare, etc, etc.
They can afford this becuse their healthcare systems are so much cheaper and more effective than Americas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXStrat
It doesn't work. The NHS is broke
The NHS costs the British taxpayer 2 800 $ per person per year. Government healthcare in the US costs every taxpayer $ 4 000 per year. That is a total difference in cost of half the US military budget.
And the NHS covers everyone, and delivers better results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXStrat
I have lived, not visited, but lived in 4 European countries, and have seen and in some cases had to use their health care systems.
You are curiously non-specific as to which countries you lived in and which systems you used.
This seems to be where the mental short-circuit happens. You assume that since places with UHC often have high taxes, those extra taxes go to fund the health care. An unsuppored association between two unrelated things.
But these coutries also have many other benefits, which may include free university education, 5-6 week vacations, state pensions, strong unemployment benefits, a years materity leave every time you have a kid, subsidized daycare, etc, etc.
Centralized healthcare is obviously part of the increased tax burden. The other benefits you mention are primary causes for the current state of the EU economy. They cost more than their sponsor governments take in total revenue. While that is a great notion in the short term, over time, it is simply fiscally unsustainable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader
The NHS costs the British taxpayer 2 800 $ per person per year. Government healthcare in the US costs every taxpayer $ 4 000 per year. That is a total difference in cost of half the US military budget.
And the NHS covers everyone, and delivers better results.
Not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but around 50% of US citizens pay zero income tax, so how exactly are those persons paying in $4000 per year? The NHS simply does not provide better results. Again, I lived in the UK and used the NHS as my sole means of health care the entire time I lived there.
Centralized healthcare is obviously part of the increased tax burden.
Why obviously? Every bit of research shows the UHC systems being massivly more economically efficient. this is also in accordance with basic economic theory.
"obviously" is really not an argument when it flies in the face of both orthodox economics and all real-world experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXStrat
The other benefits you mention are primary causes for the current state of the EU economy. They cost more than their sponsor governments take in total revenue. While that is a great notion in the short term, over time, it is simply fiscally unsustainable.
"Current state of the EU economy" How do you figure that? Most EU coutries seem to be doing comparativly well. I go there for work now and then, most are doing OK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXStrat
Not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but around 50% of US citizens pay zero income tax, so how exactly are those persons paying in $4000 per year? The NHS simply does not provide better results. Again, I lived in the UK and used the NHS as my sole means of health care the entire time I lived there.
The amount of money going to government healthcare in the US equals 4 000 $ per person per year. Or; the amount of tax that goes to government healthcare in the US is 4 000 per citizen per year. The tax paying American does not just pay 4 000 because he is one person, he also pays for the non-taxed Americans.
Ive been fighting cancer for the last 1.5 years in a large city in the US. I have never had to wait for a DR appt, MRI any kind of treatments or therapies.
On the day i was diagnosed I had an MRI at the regional hosp near me. Saw my orthapedist who spotted the mast(literally walked into his offrice unannounced with a disk of theMRI). Was sent to the community medical center in the city where I saw an Oncologist and a Surgeon for to set up a biopsy and evaluation to install a port.
IN one freakin day.
Since then I have never waited for anything. In fact the DRs, cancer treatment centers and specialists are all available at the drop of a hat if needed and comfortably a few days out if i dont need care or treatment now. I am abolutely in the best place on this planet to be fighting this awful disease, no doubt in my mind
And my admin assistant had a medical issue and received an MRI within an hour of arriving at the emergency room, and was seen by the specialist about an hour later - with the results. Yesterday I met with someone with cancer. From suspicion to biopsy to surgery was roughly 1 week. No wait for her and obviously no co-pays or bills after the fact.
For every anecdote you have, we can post one as well.
Not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but around 50% of US citizens pay zero income tax, so how exactly are those persons paying in $4000 per year? The NHS simply does not provide better results. Again, I lived in the UK and used the NHS as my sole means of health care the entire time I lived there.
I'll post this again. It's how much it costs the government, per citizen.
UK total healthcare spending per person - $3480
Public - $2919
Private - $561
Doctors per 10000 - 27.43
Life expectancy - 81.05
Australia total healthcare spending per person - $3441
Public - $2340
Private - $1101
Doctors per 10000 - 29.91
Life expectancy - 81.81
USA total healthcare spending per person - $8362
Public - $4437
Private - $3925
Doctors per 10000 - 24.22
Life expectancy - 78.37
Again. The real reason it's really hard to push for universal care in the USA is because politicians (both Dems and Repubs) don't want to **** off the middle class.
The truth is the middle class needs to shoulder the burden of taxes for healthcare. It's the simple hard truth. Yet the Dems want to tax the rich. We all know you cannot fund a social system like universal healthcare by relying on tax revenues from just 3-5% of the population. The republicans obviously need to get off their holier than now "no new taxes stance".
In the US we have unequal participation. And that's not a way to run a social program.
Many libs think the ACA is a step in the right direction. It isn't. It's just cost shifting and eventually there will be less revenues than expenditures. Already there is We all know the law is severely underfunded.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
