Lycanthrop

What about Luxembourg then?

Kaffy Mintcake

I think one fear is that universal healthcare would provide a minimum level of care for everyone, but that the level of care would not be as good as what one could obtain privately. I'm not saying that's the case, I wouldn't know if it was, but I guarantee that's one fear. We're a nation of individuals - and that has good and bad implications.

One significant problem with our current system is that many will go to emergency rooms for treatment for non-emergency situations because they would have to be provided care. This has a great deal of ramifications (higher waits for those with real emergencies, higher costs for hospitals providing emergency care - causing some to eliminate this service when it's desperately needed, etc.)

We'd also have to find a way to pay for it, and that certainly wouldn't be cheap. Schools are currently underfunded in most areas, and as we recently saw in Minnesota - infrastructure and other areas need attention as well.

Obviously spending a lot of money overseas in Iraq, etc. doesn't help - but the UK's NHS hasn't gone away as a result of involvement in war, etc.

So help me understand (I've never been in a nation with universal healthcare) .. is the idea that taxes in such areas are much higher, and therefore individuals may earn less, but everyone is provided for at least at a basic level?

Sally

I would say British healthcare is above basic level. You can get all the latest treatments without any cost to you, emergency and urgent care usually being above reproach, some longer waits for non-urgent treatment. You have the option to pay exra to see the same consultant privately, and this will help you jump the queue. Prescriptions are a fixed price and free for children, unemployed, pensioners etc. Also you can pay a fixed annual fee if you have a lot of prescriptions. Contraception is free.

Up to when I left the cost to employees was 9% of income, this also covers state pension contributions.

Personally I haven't found taxes here to be that much lower than in Britain, it's kind of swings and roundabouts.

I think he USA must spend a lot more on defence, and the administration of healthcare.

Kaffy Mintcake

Well if it was possible to see the same consultant more quickly if you were willing to pay private costs then that seems to take care of concerns some may have.

Seems like a win win to me.

Elvira

I'm sorry, but we have been round this particular mulberry bush sooooooooo many times... If you do a search you will find several threads were this issue has been debated ad infinitum. Plus if you google, you will find tons of stuff about universal healthcare in general and the various European systems in particular.

At the end of the day, the fact is that European countries spend 8-10% of GDP on healthcare and cover everyone, and quality of health and life expectancy is the same as in the US, which spends a whacking 16% of GDP.

If you factor in what the average US family spends on healthcare, the total 'taxburden' is often actually higher than taxes in Europe.

simongb

I had read somewhere that the cost to treat a patient in Canada is cheaper than in the US and Canada has universal healthcare. My feeling is that the system here is a cash cow for many people who don't want to change it. It seems to me that the US government is so focused on military spending that it does not provide the basics for it's own citizens.

Sally

It seems that way

dan_alford

Here is one example:
http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/...A06%3A50%3A037


"The parents of a “loving” daughter who died from an undiagnosed brain tumour after complaining of severe headaches to her GP for 11 months have called for a review of medical procedures."

This is the real cost of the "Queue jumping" private health insurance in the UK. Those that don't have it have to wait longer so that those with it can be seen quicker.

southern comfort

cold hard cash works in these cases toohttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6937448.stm

scrubbedexpat099

I do not see the connection, if I was in that situation I would have paid for an MRI.

In the US of course its the other way around, need an Asprin, you get an MRI, as long as you can afford it.

If you can not, you get neither.

BigDavyG

Well, at least he's not completely nuts.
Good to see that the Moore publicity team didn't think it was bad taste to invite the guy to their movie though

Anyway - back to the matter at hand - I don't get how anyone can be opposed to universal healthcare, or at least some form of it.
Its certainly beneficial to the current system where people are making billions out of the sick and infirm, and not even providing them with adequate care.

BigDavyG

Yeah - that's right - blame the war

elfman

So you'd agree with Michael Moore on at least one issue then?

dan_alford

The connection is that the facilities keep a block of open time for Private Insurance or Cash customers. If they budget half of their time like that it would double the queue time for the treatment for those who can't afford it. I used UK private health insurance to see a specialist one time. I saw the exact same specialist I would have seen on the NHS, but in 2 weeks instead of 5 months.

That's better than the US system where if you don't have the money you don't get it. But that only apply if you live that long.

Socialised healthcare is "a good thing" but the current NHS system does have a lot of flaws and this drifting towards queue jumping insurance introduces a two tier system where the poor are the ones who are missing out.

scrubbedexpat099

There has always been the private option in the UK.

In your example if that was the case it is more likely that there is a MRI because private patients are paying to use it, where there would not have been one otherwise.

If there is a demand, and the NHS can make money out of it to provide services to those who can not pay, go for it. Win win.