Duncan Roberts

Most other countries tie some sort of cost to the employer to cover healthcare, usually a tax. In a weird way, the US way makes it more appealing for employers to give raises since the amount they pay for healthcare is going to be fixed regardless of how much employees earn but in other countries, the UK for example, the more the employees earn the more the employer will have to pay towards the healthcare cost. That £1000 raise becomes an £1100 cost and ends up as a £900 raise. That's not exact numbers but you get the point.

The US system has problems and needs changing but it's a lot more complicated than people make out.

Giantaxe

They tie in a cost, but typically not the actual access an employee is likely to have to healthcare. Big difference.

I am not sure I understand your example. Almost all NHS funding comes out of general taxation. If a company makes more profit they will be paying more to the NHS, just as they will be paying more for defence etc. If they don't make a profit, they effectively won't be contributing. Compare and contrast to the US system and a company like GM: drowning in red ink but still burdened with healthcare costs for its employees. Or, alternatively, employees get their health insurance removed or downgraded.

Duncan Roberts

Yes, the access is generally not tied to the company. I think Germany has a system where it can partially be but not mandated.

My example of the NHS is that national insurance pays a part and the employee contribution is only 50% of the premium, the employer picks up the remaining 50%. So when a company gives a raise they are giving the raise money plus the additional NI on that increase.

Giantaxe

A very small proportion of NI contributions go to the NHS, and it's a tiny fraction of total NHS funding. I really don't think it's a big factor.

Duncan Roberts

It's not the portion that matters, just the fact that it is a cost to employers and it's not this magical free system that nobody pays for that a lot of people say.

Giantaxe

Well, your argument appeared to be that it was a disincentive to raise pay in the UK. On that basis, the portion absolutely matters, as that is what determines what extra the employer is contributing to the NHS. My argument is that as the amount is small - and is even smaller compared to the amount funded out of general taxation - so it's really a non-issue.

Obviously the NHS is not a magical free system, but like for individuals, companies are effectively paying for it in accordance with their 'means" aka profits.

EU_Girl

Dear Bowenaj37,
you are either unaware of the insurance policies or you want to take advantage of the system. Hope the first one is true and we can forget the latter. If so, by that time ( 9 page replies from people who have taken your post seriously and wanted to give you a helpful answer) you know the answer. The answer is NO.

Should you go ahead after being aware of the answer:NO, and get travel insurance, get non-emergency operation with success and do not pay/deny payment, then you are a scam and hope you will get caught and deported!

Best regards,
EU_Gal (a honest, legal immigrant)

MsElui

also bear in mind that the NI contributiuon has an upper cap -= so once the employee is paid over that amount the NI payments dont go up any more.

Englishtart

I can't remember anyone saying it was 'free', but that really isn't the point is it? How many people do you know that have gone bankrupt in the UK from medical bills?

UK residents can obviously afford to pay the contributions to the NHS, nobody I know would move to the US to get better/cheaper health care, yet there are plenty of people (read the MBTTUK forum) that are going home to the UK because they cannot afford to stay here once they start to need more and more medical help.

Duncan Roberts

I am very well aware of the shortcomings of the US system. The $10,000+ a year just for me to stay alive would cause major problems should I ever lose my health insurance. I also don't have access to things that would make it easier for me because I can't afford them, even with insurance. You have to look at the good and the bad of the system and how it really works before coming up with a solution. I've been slowly researching it for 5 years but I still don't understand most of it.

Ozone Park

Complicated? Oh really? Is it more complicated than building roads, bridges, mass transit, providing for the defense, police and fire protection, postal or any of the other basic services government provides? Is it more complicated than Social Security or Medicare? How's that insurance industry kool-aid tasting Duncan?

It's real simple friends, America's military budget is almost bigger than the rest of the worlds combined. Who are they afraid of again? The money spent on this giant corporate welfare, and jobs program for defense workers to build crap they don't need can be used to provide health care for it's people. It's not complicated at all. America spends more on weapons than the next top 15 military powers combined. Maybe they should cut that in half and only spend as much as the next 8 military powers combined, and see who invades them.

Complicated?

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/tr...=Get+Trade+Off

Nutmegger

But there are systems in place for all these things that have been built up over the years; the complication is in setting up an immense totally new system, which will be looked at more critically and by more people than most new highways, from scratch.

Giantaxe

The US's spending priorities are undoubtedly misguided (and we never hear these teabag people wanting to cut military spending, of course...) but that's only one part of the puzzle. The bottom line is that the US spends a far bigger proportion of its GDP on healthcare (16%) than any other western nation, and yet still leaves a good chunk of its population outside of the "system".

Ozone Park

It's called Medicare- It's already in place,they just have to hire more people. Perhaps displaced defense industry employees?

Real Simple- Medicare for everyone

Next!?

Ozone Park

Thats right! Right now they spend more, and they get less. Right now. Once that's understood any argument about cost goes right out the window.