Personal or government responsibility???

[kazza1985]

We have the National Health Service which is paid for by contribution from tax payers. The government take a percentage of a working person's monthly income which I think i at 23%. Everyone in the UK has what is called a personal allowance.... we are allowed to earn so much before tax is taken from our earnings. An individual can normally earn about 375 pound (roughly 770 us dollars) before any reductions are made.
Then the 23% is based on any amount higher than this personal allowance. Ok so you might think that 23% is quite high but as a free country we do actually get a lot for "free".

This money pays for a lot of things that we take for granted such as the NHS. There are many complaints in the UK about the National Health Service such as wages not being high enough, lack of staffing, hygience, waiting lists etc but for those that are poor or can not afford to pay for medical bills, it sure takes some of the financial burden away should family members fall ill.

You might think that 23% is a high percentage but the money does go very far. the largest expenditure from income tax is on the benefits system. To give you a basic idea, I recieve a montly income of roughly 537.00 GBP (this comes from tax payers money) which would equal to 1,101.61USD and because this is a low income, I get my rent and council tax paid for.

I would not like the financial burden of medical bills. I am sure mum will have her two cents worth seeing as she works for the NHS

[ColdCase]

Perspective from a country that has "universal" health care:



The other piece of the equation that no one ever wants to talk about up here is that the two-tier health care system still lives on in a universal system. If the rich and powerful don't want to wait in the queue with the masses, they are free to seek their treatments outside of the system -- rich folks in Canada routinely head to the States for quick medical procedures that might take months to get in Canada. Such is the privilege of having money.

I too am for universal health care, but after many years
within that system I have noticed these things:

1. We lose many young doctors to the U.S. because of
their financial concerns.

2. We have now allowed doctors to 'opt out' of the system.
I wouldn't mind if the wealthy, as Jim has mentioned, traveled
outside of the country to receive speedier care, but to cater
to their needs within the country seems to defeat the purpose
of the system.

3. In Canada dental care for kids under 12 is covered. My dentist
friend has informed me that after much negotiation with the government
all pediatric doctors in Quebec have rallied and are threatening to 'opt out' of medicare. This to me is questionable, but also indicates doctor's
dissatisfaction with the system.

4. Doctors are finding 'creative' ways to supplement their income.
Example: I went to the Opthamologist for a routine test recently. This
was not for an eye test (which would have cost me $80) but as
an extension of my yearly check-up referred to by my family doctor.
He merely checks for onset of certain disorders.
The secretary asked for my medicare card then asked for $20 cash.
I inquired as to why and she replied: "For the drops."
I gave her the 20 which she added to the wad of 20's she
drew from her pocket.
I made it a point to look at the bottle before he administered the drops.
I estimated there were 200 drops in said bottle. So...at $10 a drop,
that would make it a $1000 bottle. You estimate what the doctor paid
for it.

I know, $20 is not much, but doctors are charging various amounts
over and above the scope of medicare using various degrees of creativity.

5. Overall though, it seems to be a workable system.

[Jamesrpw]

With the recent talk of a national health care plan the basic question of where does an individual's responsibility end and the government's responsibility begin comes into question.

How much of your life are you willing to let the government be in charge of and what price are you willing to pay for them to take care of you???

I don't really trust insurance being personal or government because both ways seem like they would screw you anyway they can when you would be in the hospital and end up hearing they don't cover your situation.

[mooch81]

National healthcare is an overall sinkhole unfortunately. Much in the ideal of how communism is a good idea, it's a nice idea, however the number of problems it causes outweighs the benefits. First, one of the main problems people are finding is a large number of doctors who choose not to participate and form private practice scenarios, because they are not in favor of being payed a government subsidy, and ONLY a government subsidy. Greed? Maybe some, but remember how government is planning on installing such a situation. They tax. Who gets taxed more? The rich. The general populace stops paying for healthcare and the money that goes to the doctors is then taken from taxes, that the doctors pay. Instaproblem means lots of private practices, very few doctors that are able to see patients for the people who didn't want to pay for healthcare.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../nteeth115.xml

Don't get fooled into thinking it's all beautiful simply because now you have someone to make your bed for you. There's a problem that needs to be addressed, however national healthcare is not the answer because of obvious reasons. What needs to happen is what is currently going on slowly but surely, and that is many corporations are being required to obtain a primary healthcare for ALL employees. This immediately cuts out small business owners, which means we need to relook at our business healthcare situations. Possibly a stint on amount of charge from HMO's to certain types of situations, but it's something to work on.

Sorry, but I disagree that someone taking care of you is ever a good idea. You should only be content if someone's willing to help out, if you have the drive to first be able to do it yourself. There's an answer here, we just need to really come to terms with what it is and instate it.

[agy690]

Is this really what we want, a plan put together by the unions and Big Business to cover employees by an undefined system paid for by the federal government, businesses, and workers?

After all, what is single-payer health care and GOOD universal health care after all? It is a federal government plan that is paid for by taxes, and taxes come from? Income taxes, which come from businesses and workers.


Would Americans support government action to create such a system? They say they would, though there are nuances to that support which suggest mobilizing the public to move in that direction remains tricky. Here's what we know and what we don’t about public opinion on universal health care, based on available data.

What We Know

1. Rising health care costs, not health coverage, is people’s chief health care concern.

2. The public wants the government to play a leading role in providing health care for all.

3. Americans overwhelmingly agree that access to health care should be a right.

4. The public says it is willing to pay more in taxes to provide every American with health care coverage.

5. Support for universal coverage drops significantly if such a program would mean limitations on access to medical care.

6. Willingness to pay more in taxes for universal coverage is a “soft” commitment.

7. The public also is not completely clear on whether the federal government actually has to lead the way on universal coverage.

8. And the public is not sure whether the government should make a major or a limited effort to provide health insurance to the uninsured.

9. The public generally wants to build on, rather than eliminate, the current employer-based private health insurance system.

10. In that context, the public supports a wide variety of options for expanding health insurance to cover more Americans.

What We Don’t Know

1. Does the public see a connection between universal coverage and containing health care costs? If so, what kind and how can that connection be strengthened? If not, what can be done to create that connection?

2. The public says it favors a government role in guaranteeing health insurance coverage for all. But how does the public envision that role? And what does the public really hear when terms like “universal coverage” and “guaranteed health insurance” are used? Do advocates know what kind of terminology would actually work the best when talking about these goals with the public?

3. If the public believes access health care is a “right,” is that the best way to talk about the goal of universal coverage? If not, what is the best way to connect to Americans’ values in and around the health care issue?

4. We need to know much more about the sensitivity of the American public to the costs involved in extending health insurance coverage. How seriously should we take the surface commitment to pay more in taxes? How would the issue have to be framed to make that surface commitment into a more durable one? How important might the issue of containing health care costs be to getting the public to accept the costs of universal coverage?

5. How can advocates avoid the restricted choice counterattack that will inevitably be raised to any universal coverage plan? Should consumer choice be a central element of any universal coverage plan? If so, what is the best way to frame that?

6. The public appears to support the general goal of universal coverage but seems shaky on the scale of the effort need to meet that goal. What is the best and most effective way of making clear the scale of effort needed to actually attain universal coverage?

7. The public appears to support a wide range of possible ways to increase coverage, but it is unclear which, if any, of these approaches the public identifies as particularly effective. Can we the public be led to identify progress toward universal coverage with a few key reforms that would stand out from the rest? If so, which ones and how should advocates talk about them?

Any insight from those already under the UHC would be great!

[bluffmanxx]

Here are 2 very simple questions about "universal" health care in the U.S.

First, do we include "non-citizens" (aka illegal aliens) If so why??? The way I see it legislation has to be passed granting them some sort of legal status before they can be included. Of course their inclusion if status is granted will inflate the cost of the program far beyond whatever input they have via taxes. This inclusion would also seem to be just one more huge attraction for even more illegals to enter the U.S.

Second, even without including "non-citizens" all of the newly insured would increase the demands on the current medical system resulting in a probable shortage of doctors to go along with the current shortage of nurses. At the same time, how many students would want to bear the expense and effort of medical school to take a "government job" with severe limits on salary??

With a constant supply and a rapidly increasing demand, prices for health care would skyrocket without government controls. We already spend 16% of our GDP on health care...no other country is over 11%...so price controls and possible rationing will be necessary.

The most likely target??? The elderly of course. Half of current medicare spending is during the last year of patients lives. If costs go up and rationing is necessary who gets the care...someone who will soon die anyways or a younger patient with a longer expected lifespan??

[Night Nurse]

OOOoooooohhh nice subject

In the UK we pay for public services via income tax (taxed wages after earning personal allowance of around £5,000 and this is set at 10% for low earners, 22% for average wage earners - up to around £35,000 a year, and 40% for those who are lucky enough to earn more).

Public services include state education up to the age of 18, universal health care - Cradle to the grave, crime prevention and punishment, fire services, benefits (which is a grey area cos we also pay National Insurance contributions towards benefits/pensions).... and other things.

Now working within the NHS (National Health Service) we get scare mongering on a regular basis about job security cos of cutbacks in services and/or staff. My own department was on the verge of collapse because it was being looked into whether the private sector could provide the same quality care at a reduced cost... well the department is still here. (I work in the community, so I see patients in their homes giving them excellent care as opposed to a hospital setting due to them having 100% of my time and not having to prioritise between patients due to lack of staff on a ward. This is essential for palliative care.. caring for the terminally ill in the last days of their lives... giving them dignity, respect and caring holistically for every single aspect of their needs including caring/supporting their sig others. We also have a rehab section... where patients recover from ops at a quicker rate in their own homes, actually making savings to the NHS).

Being on the inside I see what a difference we make to these peoples' lives. Especially those who have no means of finding alternative care... taking politics out of this (I wish), I do not want to think about an alternative. Sure the NHS isn't perfect.... but the bloody staff are

[Niccivan]

All I know is I have medicl issues I can't get addressed because I have no insurance. (this is a lie - actually I do have insurance...its just abso-fucking-lutely retarded - we get an allowance....once you spend it...you are SOL). anyways, it fucking sucks. I certainly don't have the money to just go see a doctor and pay out of pocket. its too expensive. so Im all for whatever can get me seen and my problems addressed and taken care of.

[mooch81]

All I know is I have medicl issues I can't get addressed because I have no insurance. (this is a lie - actually I do have insurance...its just abso-fucking-lutely retarded - we get an allowance....once you spend it...you are SOL). anyways, it fucking sucks. I certainly don't have the money to just go see a doctor and pay out of pocket. its too expensive. so Im all for whatever can get me seen and my problems addressed and taken care of.

Then what you need to do is acquire a different form of health insurance. Basically it's like this, national health insurance is instituted. It's basically the same thing as telling everyone that the diner down the street is now giving away food instead of charging for it. All of a sudden, a lot of people who were moderately hungry and could have been fine before now want free food. So they jump in line, and the line gets longer and longer until you realize that there are people who are seeking treatment in India, Turkey, anywhere but England where they get free national healthcare because "you're aren't important as others because you hurt yourself and there's too many waiting", or "Sorry but we just don't have the ability to see you and your pain for another month, or maybe two because there's just so many people".

NHS is funded by general taxation. Taxes are, per democratic status, placed haughtily on the rich. The IRS reports the top 1% of the wealthy in the US pay 39% of all the national taxes. That's insane. That's basically the same thing as having them pay for your healthcare, which may sound fine and dandy, but the rise in healthcare will cause a rise in taxes, and that top 1% will only pay that amount for so long before they revolt, which means those taxes for national morale will be added to the middle class as well. Which like it or not, is you Nicci. And everyone else in here. Meaning, you will be paying for your healthcare. Only when NHS is instituted, you won't have a choice. Because not only are you paying for yours, but your paying for the kid working the drive thru at mcdonalds too. And everyone else's. National Health Care is a genuine idea that can only be supported through dreams. As soon as it becomes reality, we start seeing problems that you never thought would exist in the US. Can you imagine a person being turned away from a hospital simply because there wasn't enough room? Well .. wait a while and if NHS happens, you won't have to imagine it.

[Niccivan]

Have you ever tried to get an insurance policy that is not through your employer?? Especially for a family of 4. The price is THROUGH THE ROOF!!!!!!!!! They want more than my car payment (which I can't even pay that). My husband's employer offers 1 type of insurance - which is the one we have - and it sucks. Trying to find a seperate insurance or a suppemental insurance is way too expensive. You see....the poor people who have jobs that their employers don't give a shit about - get screwed either way you look at this. I can't afford to look outside the company for other insurance. It's just too expensive. it would be cheaper for me to see the doc only a few times a year and just pay out of pocket. (which i can't do that either!) It's like a catch-22.