If we (USA) went to socialized medicine…

This, IMO, is pure evil. Taking advantage of the uninsured by charging them more in unconscionable. Even when "charity" is sometimes offered after a rigorous application, the discount may only amount to a percentage that insured patients already get.

 

I agree. Fortunately, most doctors go to the other extreme and offer a sliding scale pay for those who pay out of pocket, based on how much a person can afford to pay. Still, there should be better resources and control for those who don't have insurance.

love,

Sopranette

 

There will never be a provision for this if we continue with the status quo. There is absolutely no free market incentive to help the uninsured. They are completely at the mercy of the kindness of willing doctors.

 

The poor already have great benefits due to Welfare (Medicaid). That pays more than MY insurance does. Welfare recipients don't have to pay any co-pay at all.

I am totally against Universal Health Care. I would not only have to pay for my insurance, but everyone else's...

I have talked to people who actually live with it and I know someone personally (in England) who had a relative die while waiting on a list to see a doctor. And you can forget going to the Emergency Room or calling an ambulance. You will die while waiting.

You don't actually think the government will pay for it do you? The only way they will pay for it is with our money!

We pay a high premium for our group insurance, but we will be paying more (via our taxes) with UHC and not have the service afforded to us now.

 

Not true. Do you realize how poor you have to be to get Medicaid? If you make minimum wage, you make too much. Minimum wage workers cannot afford to pay their bills, much less health insurance.

 

Glad to know that YOU are covered with a good policy.

Unfortunately, those who aren't offered group coverage are just going to be left out in the cold.

 

I thought the poor is who we were talking about. Illinois has a huge amount of Medicaid recipients and a lot of them won't accept a minimum wage job. They'd rather stay on welfare.

Also, if they get a minimum wage job, their Medicaid is not cut off, neither is their food stamps. The only thing they lose is the cash they receive from Welfare each month (this is in IL - I don't know about most of the other states).

Most states even have a separate insurance for kids through government funding.

We are covered with a good policy and we pay dearly for it. I'm glad I have a husband who is willing to work every day rather than sit on his duff and let the government pay for us.

He has health problems that would let him qualify for retirement and welfare. He chooses to work.

Three years ago, when I was 60, I was ripping the shingles off of our roof because we could not afford to hire it done and my husband wasn't able to do it after working 10 hours a day/5 days a week and 5 hours on Saturday in a factory - 55 hour work week.

I had at least three burly lads in their twenties, stop and ask if I would hire them to do it for me. Of course, I would have to pay them cash because they didn't want to lose their welfare checks!

Give me a break! Where is our work ethic?

A lot of people are on Welfare because they have no other choice.

A lot of people are on Welfare because they dropped out of school and will not work for minimum wage.

Again, where is our work ethic???

I prefer to pick my own doctor and see the same one everytime I have to go. I also prefer having a doctor in my own home town.

We are going broke paying for Welfare...where will we be when we have to pay for UHC?

(I am not condemning anyone who truly has a need to be on Welfare. I'm talking to the freeloaders who could work if they wanted to.)

 

Just by way of providing some info, the British National Health Service began in July 1948. I wasn't born then to testify to how it differed from what went before, but clearly it was a better system since it quickly became considered a national treasure. At present about 7.8% of GDP is spent on healthcare.

Its central principles are clear: the health service would be available to all and financed entirely from taxation, which means that people pay into it according to their means.

There are still private clinics, hospitals and insurers for those who desire and can afford them. General Practitioners do have a degree of autonomy over their practices, but as far as I know,under normal circumstances, they cannot refuse to treat a patient on their register.


As David Lamb said the system isn't perfect, but it isn't terrible either. Yes, therer are horror stories of long waiting times in accident and emergency, but patients who have life threatening conditions are seen instantly, - in grown toe nails may have to wait a while.


We do pay for prescriptions, opticians and dental care (Up to a max of £195). Thankfully I have been blessed with good health, but on the few occasions I have needed to see a doctor I have been able to without any trouble, and been well treated with great professionalism. I know that means that most of the tax I have paid has probably been spent on others, but I am happy with that, (a) Because as a Christian I am to love others, and (b) Given that most of the expenditure on health goes toward the healthcare of the very young (my children) or the very old (my parents), I expect I shall be a recipient of this benefit myself at some point in the future.

 

Let me start by saying that my knowledge of this matter is sketchy, at best (hence the oft-repeated "As I understand it"), so there may be some errors in what follows!

The National Health Service was introduced on 5th July, 1948. No, I wasn't there; I was born in April 1949.



I don't know how the introduction of the NHS affected healthcare workers, but I do not imagine it affected insurance workers. As I understand it, we did not have a system of health insurance such as exists in America. Before 1948, the lowest-paid workers could consult a doctor without payment. The slightly better off had to pay, although many doctors reduced their fees, or were prepared to give treatment first, and await payment. Of pre-1948 hospital treatment, the book "The Social Sciences" by Bill Myers and Lin Shaw says:

Most hospitals charged up front. The poorest could claim refunds, but this clearly did not help those who could not find the money in the first place. In London and some of the larger cities there were a few free hospitals supported by charity, but they were usually overwhelmed with patients and in constant danger of financial collapse. In the larger towns, maternity care, the treatment of infectious diseases and the care of the mentally ill were provided in municipal hospitals funded by the local authority. Some were excellent but others little more than wharehouses.




​

I imagine it was possible in the UK prior to 1948 to take out health insurance, but as I understand it, few people did so. As far as I am aware, there were no insurance companies before 1948 that specialised in health/medical cover, so no, the government did not "buy out" the insurers. Private health insurers do exist now, because people have the choice of using the NHS or "going private". If they choose the latter, they obviously will have to pay directly for treatment, and so may take out health insurance to cover them.

I don't know what percentage of the GNP is spent on healthcare. I did a Google searche and found that between 7 and 8% of the GDP is spent on health.

As I understand it (and I am no expert on this, so I could well be wrong), doctors in the National Health Service are paid by central government. Although we pay them through taxation, the NHS is free at the point of need.

 

Income tax.

Neither. The patient registers himself.

Not quite sure what you mean. I don't see the government "providing" it as such, as everyone pays for it. The government oversees the funding, and every election time usually it is raised as an electoral issue, i.e., governments who spend too little suffer, whilst also how the NHs is managed is a matter in which politicians are held to account. Yes, those who don't work get it the same as those who do. Admittedly that can be annoying when it is applied to those who WON'T work, but from what I have read in this thread it would seem such people also benefit from government sponsored medical care in the U.S., and this is probably true of every nation in the Western World.

Just to add a little anecdote of my own, I have a Pastor friend who ministers in Ohio. His son has a brain disease which required mulitiple surgeries. Although the initial surgeries were covered by insurance, subsequently he could not find a company to take the risk, thus if the problem re-emerges he must find the funding himself to secure treatment. This simply does not happen in the UK, and I for one, am glad for that.

 

Work ethic has nothing to do with it. As a minister, I could work 20, 40, or 80 hours a week, and it wouldn't change my family's health insurance situation one bit. We don't have access to a group health plan (SBC insurance is individual for all but the churches that have 10 or more employees and my wife's job doesn't offer health coverage). We have to pay a lot of money for an individual plan that won't cover what we need it to cover because of pre-existing conditions (i.e. PERMANENT exclusions).

It's not always a matter of being lazy and not working. Not every employer offers a group plan. If you are offered one, it is foolish to decline it, but not all are offered.

It's easy to throw stones when you aren't in others' shoes.

 

It's only as communist as our socialist police forces, socialist fire departments, socialist road crews, etc.

 

Some socialistic things are good, some bad.

 

I believe the basic rate at present is 22%, however you are allowed to earn a certain amount before taxation kicks in. Yes we can have various deductions and each person is given a tax code which makes allowance for their circumstances (if they have children etc). The government here operates a system known as "Gift Aid" for charitable giving, whereby any tax you paid in gifts is returned to the charity you gave it to, this means tax payers in church at present may contribute an extra 28% to their giving if they participate in the scheme.

 

"If we (USA) went to socialized medicine…"

We'd be paying more taxes.

 

There are three income tax rates. The Starting Rate is 10%. This is for those people earning up to £2,150 per year above their tax-free allowance. The Basic Rate, 22%, is for people earning between £2,151 and £33,300 per year above their tax-free allowance. The Higher Rate, 40% is for people earning more than £33,300 per year above their tax-free allowance. The tax-free allowance varies, depending on one's age and (for people born before 1935) marital status. An unmarried person under the age of 65 has a tax-free allowance of £5,225 per year, for example. Individuals do not get deductions for charitable giving, but there is a scheme for the charity to get back the tax paid on financial gifts made to it. Some interest on savings is taxable; some is not - it depends on the type of savings account. One type, the ISA (Individual Savings Account) is tax-free, for instance. (Sorry, we seem to be meandering away from the subject of this thread, but I hope there is enough of a connection to make this post valid )