I distinctly remember reading a few years ago the arguments for socialized healthcare in American press, citing England’s successes with HHS system, among others. Does this new information change anything?
Having lived in countries with socialized healthcare and having also lived in the US, I'd greatly prefer a longer free waiting period as opposed to a nearly as long multi-thousand dollar waiting period: https://www.oecd.org/health/waiting-times-for-health-service...
Socialist health care systems aren't "free". They come at a great cost, in the form of high taxation, government debt, inflexibility, and inefficiency.
In Canada, for example, patients who have the financial means to do so will often seek treatment at private clinics in the US or other nations, rather than enduring the "free" socialist health care system in their province.
To make matters even worse, despite paying high tax rates, many Canadians still rely on private health insurance to pay for the many routine vision, dental, and pharmaceutical costs that aren't covered by the socialist health care systems.
I do wish it were referred to as "single payer" or what have you instead of "free". Not because I think it's really fooling many people into thinking it somehow makes healthcare cost nothing to society as a whole but because it constantly detracts conversation into pointing out that it still bears a cost.
I don't think any implementation of any healthcare model in any country is without people who wished it served them better who may be interested in pursuing alternatives to it. As such comparisons which only talk about how an option isn't without problems does little to really answer which options are preferable. At best this informational alone will only tell you half the story needed. I've never really seen a solid way to compare how effective different healthcare models are though. It's hard enough to detangle the impact of the funding model from other factors at one point in time let alone over decades between countries.
> They come at a great cost, in the form of high taxation, government debt, inflexibility, and inefficiency.
That sounds great on paper, but I've become skeptical of the catchphrase. Total tax rates in the USA don't seem that much lower for individuals. Many charts of tax rates are based on taxes as a share of GDP which IMHO isn't useful.
I just looked up the tax rates in German and California (both high economic centers). It seems Germany is about ~38% vs a total rate in California of ~33%. There are states in the US that don't have income tax like Wyoming, but overall the state income taxes are about ~6-8%. Top tax rates in California are higher than in Germany too.
Also the US corporate tax is 35%, of course only for those corps that can't afford setting up tax shelters, like Google and Apple, etc. In the EU it's 15%, though the use taxes are higher vs sales taxes.
So taxes are a bit lower in the US they don't seem significantly lower, especially in states with high economic output (and jobs) like California and New York.
I'm not pro high taxes. For example I'm a fan of lowering the US corporate tax and closing the tax haven / Bermuda tax shenanigans. It does seem that the US takes almost as many taxes but provide less services and bang for the buck at the same time.
I think that both types of systems have serious problems. It's not a matter of just adopting one extreme viewpoint or the other. I think it's a very challenging set of problems.
It's almost as if everyone's view on many issues reduces down to "you just need to have competition" or "you just need to cooperate". They are more complex problems than that.
Even with one the best insurance in America, I struggle to find primary care doctors who will accept new patients. My next appointment is with a nurse practitioner in December.
The NHS was one of the things that made the UK more than just "America with national depression and less money". It will probably be gone soon, because given the choice between a great society and pissing free money at any problem rather than doing some basic planning and taking responsibility, people choose the later.
No, of the people whose health conditions I would know about, over 1 in 8 are on a waiting list. One of which will die if they choose to wait to see the NHS instead of going private.
This definitely seems like the sort of situation where this is going to start having massive knock-on consequences. Complications from untreated illnesses, job losses due to chronic illnness, deaths whilst on waiting lists, further thinning out of staff due to unreasonable demands placed upon them due to unsatisfiable demand. At some point the whole structure beocmes unviable, the thing to remember is that this is the innevitable result of starving the NHS of resources in the first place. It was fine when it was competently goverened. You'd need to be kind of thick to stay in the UK as a doctor today, which is a massive challenge for the NHS, and you'd need to be an idiot to move to the UK (see: recent comments on immigration from the home office).
You’d need to be an idiot not to move out of the UK (if you have the option). The cost of living is no longer worth what you’re getting in return compared to most European countries.
20 comments
[ 19.8 ms ] story [ 901 ms ] threadIn Canada, for example, patients who have the financial means to do so will often seek treatment at private clinics in the US or other nations, rather than enduring the "free" socialist health care system in their province.
To make matters even worse, despite paying high tax rates, many Canadians still rely on private health insurance to pay for the many routine vision, dental, and pharmaceutical costs that aren't covered by the socialist health care systems.
I don't think any implementation of any healthcare model in any country is without people who wished it served them better who may be interested in pursuing alternatives to it. As such comparisons which only talk about how an option isn't without problems does little to really answer which options are preferable. At best this informational alone will only tell you half the story needed. I've never really seen a solid way to compare how effective different healthcare models are though. It's hard enough to detangle the impact of the funding model from other factors at one point in time let alone over decades between countries.
That sounds great on paper, but I've become skeptical of the catchphrase. Total tax rates in the USA don't seem that much lower for individuals. Many charts of tax rates are based on taxes as a share of GDP which IMHO isn't useful.
I just looked up the tax rates in German and California (both high economic centers). It seems Germany is about ~38% vs a total rate in California of ~33%. There are states in the US that don't have income tax like Wyoming, but overall the state income taxes are about ~6-8%. Top tax rates in California are higher than in Germany too.
Also the US corporate tax is 35%, of course only for those corps that can't afford setting up tax shelters, like Google and Apple, etc. In the EU it's 15%, though the use taxes are higher vs sales taxes.
So taxes are a bit lower in the US they don't seem significantly lower, especially in states with high economic output (and jobs) like California and New York.
I'm not pro high taxes. For example I'm a fan of lowering the US corporate tax and closing the tax haven / Bermuda tax shenanigans. It does seem that the US takes almost as many taxes but provide less services and bang for the buck at the same time.
1: https://bvcocpas.com/how-the-united-states-tax-rates-compare...
NHS was mostly cited as to what happens when you start defunding your national healthcare system ...
It's almost as if everyone's view on many issues reduces down to "you just need to have competition" or "you just need to cooperate". They are more complex problems than that.
England population: 56.5m
Anyone else find it hard to believe that 1 in 8 people including children are waiting for hospital treatment?
I'd pretty much expect 100% of 60 year olds to be waiting for something healthcare related. Depends what you define as being hospital treatment.