Originally Posted by Mrs.PatsFanInVa

You do realize that if we had a national health care system you would not have premiums,co-pays, co-insurances or deductibles, don't you?

Originally Posted by The Brandon Five

I think you are both missing my point. The concept that a service being performed on your behalf (a service that requires human labor) is a fundamental right has implications that those of us who do not rely on renumeration for that labor might not appreciate. I guarantee you that your friends in the medical field still expect to be paid for doing their job. Why would anyone get paid if it is a natural right?

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

Then explain the wider disparity in health outcomes correlated with economics. Medicaid is great for the officially poor, but the poverty line is pretty low. That leaves the American working poor, and anybody working for a small business not offering a group plan, up a creek. The stats bear that out....

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

...And that's the whole point of this thread, not to trash America.

It's my belief that the Brits do many things well. We do other things well. I think it makes sense to learn from their experiences.

I see here all the time people who think that makes sense when they fish up one or another story about how terrible British or Canadian single-payer health care is... But faced with the idea that NHS is actually good in the eyes of its customers, all we'll hear about is what a "small" country Britain is (of what, 75 million people? Seems pretty big to me.)

Every society's different, but by insisting that the differences are impossible to control for analytically, we shoot ourselves in the foot (whereas the Brits, without the benefit of hand-guns, must be content with knicking themselves with the nail trimmer.) Similarly, when you insist that everything is best in the past, okay in the present, and worst of all if it changes, you aren't "protecting America" from anything except progress.

PFnV

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

well then, the nut of your argument -- comparatively -- is the idea that the British Inland Revenue taxes everybody on every pound, and the American IRS does not.

This is incorrect. First off, there are 29 million people in the British workforce, but there are 61 million people (not 75 million, which I said before -- mea culpa. Thanks, Google.) 51 million of these are adults. So, just as in the U.S., surprise surprise, you can make a case that lots of people aren't income-taxed... because they're not in the workforce. (They do however pay sales taxes or VAT taxes.)

Next, not every worker is taxed at all through Inland Revenue, and not every pound earned is taxed if you do pay taxes:

Taxes in UK/Britain/England/London: income tax & national insurance

The rates here date from 2008-2009, but you can plainly see that your first £5,435 (about $8K) is taxed at 0%. So if you earn that amount, you pay zero taxes right of the bat, to Inland Revenue. Not every wage-earner is taxed in Britain, and not all wages are taxed at all.

They seem to have just phased out the "lower tax rate" that applies to the working poor - your next £2,230 were taxed at 10%, but that went away in 08-09 (don't know whether it's back again.)

Then the "basic rate" that goes up to £36,000 pounds, is taxed at 20%. (So a total of £41,435 is taxed at 0% or 20% - about $65,000.

They've phased out their home mortgage deduction, but the Brits too have tax deductions for the poor and middle class to end up in the untaxed spectrum. They also have "dispensations" - for example, if you travel on business, the money spent on travel or other employee expenses is not taxable against either you or your employer

Inland Revenue dispensation for employees expenses | IR35-Insurance.co.uk

Etcetera. The Brits, however, are far more concerned that their rich, like our rich, deduct themselves (and offshore themselves) into "nil liability"

One final note: The oft-repeated rightist meme that "47% pay no taxes" is just wrong. The truth is that 86% of American wage-earners do, in fact, pay taxes.

It's A Myth That 47% Of Americans Pay No Taxes, In Truth 86% Pay Taxes



And again: even they pay taxes on property (if they own it) and sales. Granny still has to pay 2.29 for a $2.10 tube of poligrip, or whatevah.

PFnV

Originally Posted by Mrs.PatsFanInVa

You do realize that if we had a national health care system you would not have premiums,co-pays, co-insurances or deductibles, don't you?

Originally Posted by Drewski

...Anecdote - My neighbor just went to the Drs for a wrist ligament issue. Turns out it is early Carpal or something. Anyway on his way out of the drs office the Doc says "hey, here is wrist guard which will help (basically an Ace Bandage wrap)." Without thinking my neighbor takes it. Dr's contracted out supply company sent him a bill for $80 bucks for the wrap. Those things cost 8.99 at CVS......

Originally Posted by Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Are you trying to imply that doctors would no longer be paid at all if there was a national health care system?

Because if you are, you're wrong.

Originally Posted by chicowalker

Sometimes there are legit differences b/t a product sold at cvs and that supplied by a medical products company, sometimes not

but yes, there can be huge markups. there's a pretty wide range, actually. There are products that will be marked up to margins that are 80%-90&, others that are at 10% (gross margin, so 10% is low). I'm skeptical that there's much rhyme or reason to it.

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

...Then there's guys like Ron Paul, who would recall all American troops and close the foreign bases and provide free healthcare for everyone with the savings. Yet he's the nutjob. Too bad we didn't have a progressive thinker who had the guts to pull the plug where it needs to be pulled. If we could recombine DNA from Ron Paul with Ralph Nader's, we might have the perfect leader.