Close to $1k per month? How many people does that cover? I think between my wife and I we'll be paying around £250 (~$400) per month for the 2 of us. Which I'm happy to pay since I find the NHS good overall (and that £250 does cover everything - serious illness/surgery etc), but since national insurance is essentially a tax (and thus goes on % of income), it can shoot up as you earn more (i.e. someone lucky enough to earn £100k p/a pays £450/$700 per month). It can be a bit of a pain too since it can be a bit of a postcode lottery. Where we live now, there's 3-4 GP (local doctor) surgeries but they're only open for ~2-3 hours in the morning and ~2-3 hours in the afternoon, all during work hours (and none open on weekends). So since we work, if we need to see a GP we need to book time off. Which is a pain, especially since my nan's GP surgery (a couple of towns away from us) is open from 7am, on some weekends too, etc. Also out of interest, if you have a history of ill health in the USA, do your health insurance premiums shoot up? (Or is there protection against that happening). As in, is it possible to have something like: Good job + can afford insurance -> Ill health + have to quit job + insurance premiums shoot up = can't afford to pay the insurance?
Yup. Get sick enough and you're uninsurable. Like me. And that scenario happens all the time. It's the primary problem with private health care, I'd say. That and the prices for everything are extortionate. I was asked to pay out of my own pocket $1400 to see a GP to get a referral to a doctor who would take my coverage (what it is...) simply because they didn't want to let me see a specialist (again, I was seeing nothing but before my doctor went insane) without it. After a pulmonary embolism. Our system is irretrievably broken.
Ah. Yep, that's definitely not ideal then (sorry, I know that's stating the obvious, but difficult to know what else to say )
Welcome to capitalism: the value of human beings is defined in terms of their economic productivity and consumer power. Sick people are not economically productive, hence have little consumer power. Once that runs out they have no value whatsoever. Same goes for the elderly, the physically and mentally disabled, the mentally ill, and others who are economically disenfranchised.
Wouldn't agree (surprisingly ) The UK's fairly capitalist (all 3 main parties are capitalist, and we haven't had a socialist Government for over 4 decades), and we have a better welfare system and health infrastructure than plenty of socialist countries.
for both of us tristan.. yeah that's the thing, if your sick you can't get insured you have to get the insurance before your diagnosed.. I know it sounds so silly.. we've had this insurance awhile so we keep it.. long as we don't let it lapse, they can't cancel us it's why a lot of people go broke.. you aren't covered what are you going to do- like in kayins case (very common).. you can get on medicare and it will cover a lot- expensive meds have to be obtained through other ways (charities and such) but this is where having a nhs would work if your disabled though, you can get care.. just not the same level of care and they argue about silly things like covering oxygen and basics like that.. if your private insured, you don't have those issues.. least we haven't- heck we got oxygen stockpiled over here and they even covered a motorized wheelchair were under kaiser permanente.. I used to have blue cross and that wasn't bad either.. I agree the healthcare costs are out of control.. the insurance raises every year.. it's gone from around 600 to close to 900 a month in the last 8 or so years for the same coverage.. it may come to a point where only the wealthy can afford full coverage think that's what keeps a lot of the healthy americans on that train of why do I need to pay for something I'm not using.. it's that extra 900 bucks a month to be fully covered with no deductable (employer can cover some of this too, but it's still a lot of money) if you get in an accident or incurable condition your screwed.. I used to think like that.. thought insurance was total waste but once you know someone who needs it you'll see why a nhs isn't such a bad thing.. it's really goofy the way it's setup here- you can only play within the game they've setup.. when you lose that game- you lose big least obama is trying to fix some of the big flaws in the system like children born with problems.. they can't even get insurance which is just silly
Wow, for 2 people that's crazy expensive. Does sound like the system's a mess over there. Hope it can be improved (but seeing all the problems even with the debt ceiling, that seems unlikely).
That's the insidious thing. What you call "socialist countries" are, in fact, totalitarian regimes. The humanistic achievements of capitalist countries are in fact the result of socialist principles. The end of slavery and child labour, social welfare, workers' rights, state education, the NHS: all instigated by campaigners and politicians with socialist and indeed Christian convictions (in case you ever wonder again what religion ever did for us). Heck, if you listen to Americans maudling on about what makes America great they talk first and foremost about good ol' social principles: family values, community spirit and neighbourliness, Christian charity and a cohesive society. Productivity and wealth come second, not first.
I was referring to some of the more socialist European countries (whereby we have both a better and stronger economy, and also a more comprehensive welfare system), but I agree that plenty of good things come from principles and policies which are more social than economic. I did originally consider saying as much in my earlier post in reply to your 'Welcome to capitalism' post (i.e. that it's perfectly possible to have a capitalist country which also has socially-oriented policies; effectively socio-capitalism).
I'll number my response so I can keep up with myself. Firstly no, I don't think that labour are cuddly working class lovers. You are right Millibland and Blair are both cut from the same cloth as cameron, they are the same evil just IMO in a lesser form. Labour is sometimes right wing but less right wing than the tories. 2) The tories have tried to tackle tax avoidence and evasion and made more effort than labour (which lets face it is next to none.) Doesn't mean it will work. 3) All governments pour billions into failiures of public sector projects in boom times. Nothing new. 4)Education has got worse mainly in my experience because league tables encouraged schools to in turn encourage and offer GCSE/A-Level equivalent subjucts that are basically useless. The Doubling of money would have been great if it weren't mismanaged. For example Schools decided to buy laptops en masse which generally proved a distraction when used in subjects that didn't require them. My experience of the education system is bourgouis one upmanship, eg. "we've got this [insert latest overpriced tech here] your school hasn't so obviously we're better" rather than looking into the benifits this really has on the basis of trial cases. You are definately right that education issues aren't solved by money (BTW I don't think you mean what I said necessarily), but I think that attitudes and spending culture need to be sorted first before extra money is even thought of. 5) Labour were arrogant remember "end of boom and bust." so really they weren't smart enough to aknowledge their own political myopia. 6)http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/20/poverty-coalition-government Since labour came to power relative poverty decreased from 19/20% to 18%. So maybe not worse.......... 7) the deficit was only ~£30 bn a year for 5 years it only reached the level it is now because of bailouts and finiancial stimulus (that if they didn't exist we would be in a much deeper hole now) plus a decrease in GDP that led to less tax revenue. The statement that the interest on the national debt being as big as the education bill is like saying the interest on my mums mortgage is as much as all the utillity bills. If a crisis hits usually deficits increase and so does national debt. 8)The keynsian approach has many flaws but so does the austerity approach. Cuts will force us back into recession and keynesian will result in a default on national debt. In the great depression The chancellor of the time snowdon kept cutting spending to balance the budget at any cost, which just resulted in further economic woe. The keyensian approach will likely not work in the uk due to overspending in the boom time leaving little room for us to borrow money in the bust time. No government has a good track record of underspending in boom. Few governments actually make the money do the most it can, usually just slap it into the system and hope it works. 9) In reality you are right labour isn't a party of lower economic groups but they do less harm than the conservatives. 10) As far as the 20p/10p tax rate goes I think that working classes have seen great benifit in the working tax credit and child tax credit. And minimum wage * 11)If education is so overinflated bythe government dihorea -ing money at it, cut spending per pupil but don't cut housing benifit when rents are increasing just because they expect every disabled, low income or job seeking person to not live in a fairly rough area but instead live in the roughest (some of which may make some people veiw you differently). 12)All I am saying is that the tory government would prefer to see people at the bottom of society struggle to pay thier bills and rent than do anything or keep anything that might inconvenience the rich. I agree that more than likely the 50p tax is counter productive. In this country people undervalue safety nets such as unemployment allowance, housing benifit until they're made redundant. Therefore the majority, infact the vast majority, of people are willing to watch it have gaping holes cut in it because they see people who rely on these services as bottom feeders. There are better and more unaviodable ways to raise money than income taxes. Tax needs a balance. Income tax itself has many complicated economic and for that reason I agree that taxing the wealth is comes with as many negative effects as taxing the poor. It is though disheartening to see the same knee jerk policies emerge time and time again (as self contradictory as that may be. Back to the topic (I really should have not caused this stray). Cuts may need to be made but not in a knee jerk reactionary way. Such as opening the door(wider) to NHS privatisation. Since It is happening anyway we might aswell talk in past tense. It would have been better to look for a root to branch solution to spending innefficiencies and buerocracy.
Again, it's relative. Sure, the UK is a richer country than most in the EU. It is also ranked as the EU country where people work the longest hours and children are the unhappiest. The US has (just) the richest economy, followed hot on the heels by China. But are its people happy? Can they afford decent health care? How big is the rich-poor divide? There are more ways by which you can measure the success of a system than by financial wealth. A society that does not support its members, that does not protect its young, its elderly, its poor, weak or sick, has no function at all and is worthless.
Slightly OT but I have always wondered what actually happens if your hit by a car in the US and you don't have medical insurance?
You get a giant bill that makes you bankrupt, as the ER is compelled to treat you..and then present you with the bill as a parting gift.
What healthy people in stable work over the age of 25 who support policies against the groups mentioned above in favour of free marketism and small government is will unabated capitalism and small government still need them and feed them when their 64.
Im totally ignorant and this a totally ignorant comment but cant you just sue them for treating you when you didnt want to be treated
Reviving a really old thread at the risk of getting name called But I think given the current political scenario in the UK, its relevant. Firstly, as a foreigner from a **** country who has lived and sometimes regrets leaving the UK, the NHS is a BEAUTIFUL system as compared to the butt ugly and quite honestly insulting private ones they have in other countries. Forget about all that economics jargon about cost effectiveness, taxes,etc for a moment. Instead, think about what the NHS has meant for the UK society as a whole since its establishment and till date. 1) It has meant that people are actually free from the anxiety and acute stress and everything else that comes with it when having to worry about whether you will be able to pay for living or dying during an emergency or a terminal illness. Whether you should take one job or another based on the healthcare benefits it provides. In other words, tt has provided for TRUE freedom of the individual rather than the second grade consumer choice nonsense that is often peddled around. 2) It is the recognition of the value that all human beings(citizen or not) are equal when in time of need for their body and mind. 3) It is the recognition of the value that humans should be treated according to their individual problem and providing the best care possible, regardless of the individual's money-worth. 4) It is the recognition of the value of solidarity 5) It is the recognition that service to society is only done best when the corrupting influence of money is kept away from the care givers like doctors. 6) It is the recognition that a capitalist and an institution based on socialist principles can co-exist. Do NOT let the likes of Langsley and his corporate/tory friends take you for a ride, confusing you with silly economic jargon that hides lies and spreads confusion, treating you like childish consumers with rhetoric demonising benefit dependents so that they can divide you up against each other. If you UK-ites dont fight for anything else, fight for the NHS. It is one of THE GREATEST ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE UK and one that all of you living there should be very very proud of.
