A question for Candadians and UK folks and the Universal Healthcare

[fiddler]

Quote:
The way I understood what he said was that he was arguing that everyone must have health insurance. Many people think they should not be "forced" to buy health insurance, but if those who THINK they don't need it, don't buy it, the cost will be too high for everyone.

 

[fiddler]

Quote:
Good show. Just looked it up on netflix an watched it...Didn't load from pbs.

I liked Taiwan's setup.

Sounds like this documentary might be based on the book by T.R. Reid, which I read. It covers the same countries. He actually traveled there and experienced the health care. He also lived in the UK for a few years. There are many ways to handle "univeral health care" and not leave anyone hanging out to dry.

We are just getting started, but we should be able to work it out.

 

[fiddler]

Quote:
According to the T.R. Reid book about health care systems in the UK, France, Japan, Taiwan and Switzerland, that is exactly what the Taiwanese government did. They studied other countries and created their own system. I feel that we don't like to think any other country has an idea better than ours. No politician would ever come out and say that he got an idea from another country.

 

[fiddler]

No one has mentioned the French yet, and they could teach us something about cost-cutting. They have computerized their records so that every health care provider can connect to the system.

Each citizen has a health card. When he goes to the doctor/hospital, his card is swiped. This brings up his medical records. The doctor enters his diagnosis and directions into the computer. The "insurance" is billed directly at this time (not quite sure how this works, though). The doctor does not have to keep walls of files on his patients or have billing departments. You can imagine how much this saves him.

 

[Dunkopf]

Obama was correct in saying that the uninsured help to drive up the cost for everyone. There's no denying that. If you get in a major accident and you are not insured the hospital has to put you back together again or at least get you to the point where you can be cut lose without dying. If you are working with your horse and you get kicked in the head you could cost the taxpayers millions. Stabilize your injury then send you to a warehouse where they can keep you alive for as long as it takes to decide to pull the plug. So Obama was absolutely correct. Besides he has the figures in front of him that prove it.

His original plan would have taken care of all that with all of us paying a fair amount based on our income. People that are healthy don't like to have insurance for something that hasn't happened. So now they are stuck paying much more than if the original plan would not have met such stiff opposition. Now the only people that will truly benefit are once again the corporations. The major insurance companies. They have 40 million more policy holders coming up in the next few years. Yes they did pass some good things. Too bad people didn't do a little research though instead of counting on what the fair and balanced news had to say. The problem is just going to keep getting worse. It has to be handled at some point.

If I had a choice between paying 1200 a month plus deductible and copays or 300 a month even though I would have to share a room if I had to go to the hospital. I would choose the latter and just gripe about having to share a room.

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
That would be wonderful. Every health care person I have spoken to thinks it would be great and it would certainly save lives as well. Too efficient though.

 

[PineappleMama]

*light bulb over head glows like the sun* OHHHHHHHH

I was SO reading that wrong. OY what a goob...

97/wk doesn't seem like much income, even with the exchange rate making it $154.93... 844 would be a nice step up for us, $1348.04... so I guess this would be which bracket we'd fall in if we were in your country with our current income. That makes it a little easier to apply it to us... we don't hit the 844 at all so it'd just be straight 11% of gross for us right?... $61.60/wk or 266.76/month... compared to that quote of $400/month just for me this sounds, price wise, to be a good plan.

NOT at all commenting on services, just saying financially it would cost us a LOT less than the last private plan we saw.

Now more interrogating for the bits that don't apply to us...

Is UNDER 97/wk a different Class with a different % or do folks making that little not pay at all?

And is there just the one bracket... but the EL's and the % paid on them vary depending on what part of the Gov't is involved (other taxes) or is this your ONLY taken out of check tax? Not that that at all applies to this topic but now I'm rolling I'd really love to get the whole shebang. It seems like that Class would cover ANYONE making more than 97/wk... but I've not been the brightest bulb on this subject so figured I'ld ask.

Say someone's making 900/wk...

11% on the 747 (844-97) = 82.17 + 1% on the 56 (900-844) = 0.56 == 82.73

Is that correct... not taxed on the first 97, 11% on the 747, then 1% on anything over that?

If you made 9000/wk it'd be...

11% on the 747 (844-97) = 82.17 + 1% on the 8156 (9000-844) = 81.56 == 163.73

That can't be right... it's too dang simple...

 

[joebryant]

Quote:
Here is a key to cutting costs. Can Americans accept "plain but excellent"? I really don't know.

Anne, I'll expect you to bring me something better'n THAT.

 

[thaiturkey]

Quote:
I couldn't understand it either. I think many in this country describe heartlessness as "freedom" and "personal responsibility".

Perhaps that's a euphemism for 'survival of the fittest' or 'law of the jungle'. I can only imagine that those who hold such a view in one of the world's greatest societies either have the money to self-fund their health care, have enough income to buy insurance or are looking to justify their disinclination to buy insurance.

 

[thaiturkey]

Quote:
Tax rates and rules other than the ones we have been talking about are for the self-employed and company directors. Let's keep it as simple as possible by ignoring those for the time being.

The norm the UK is, for most personal taxes, to have a lower income band that is not taxed. It helps casual and part time workers but everyone benefits, no matter how high their income. In the case of NI contributions, gross income in the next band is taxed at 11%. If you are in that bracket you pay less than 11% in total because you benefit from the lower tax free band too. If you are a higher earner you pay 1% on income above the upper limit for 11% tax. So, a high earner will pay NI contributions at three different rates - 0%, 11% and 1%.

UK wage earners also pay income tax. It's used for all the usual things - salaries and pensions for politicians, shooting foreigners in their own countries, road infrastructure, State education and so on. In addition there are local taxes for, local road maintenance, garbage collection, public libraries and such. We have VAT on services, of course.