It’s difficult to compare taxes, previous (brief) research I’ve done suggests that I would pay about the same taxes in the US as in the UK (give or take $50 a month, depending on the US state) and people who earn more than me would pay less tax in the US, people who earn less would pay more. I earn a few thousand per year above average.

As has been correctly pointed out, I have never argued that the NHS is free – it is free at the point of use. In principle the NHS provides healthcare based on medical need, not ability to pay. This principle is considered a de facto civil right in the UK – supported by political parties across the spectrum. We really are quite a different country, socially speaking.

I would not call our system broken. Many of the world’s greatest hospitals and doctors are to be found in the U.S. And don’t forget the incredible medical advances given to the world by U.S. medical professionals. If U.S. health care performance is so “mediocre”, why do so many foreigners travel here to avoid the medical rationing in their own countries?

However, there are certain factors about our current system that drag it down:

- Malpractice lawsuits, trial lawyers, and the resulting over-diagnosing and excess procedures
- The non tax-deductible status of non-employee provided health insurance
- Illegal immigration and an enormous welfare population. I don’t know what the comparative numbers are, but is there any other developed country that has as large a problem as we have? (i.e. the burden of providing millions of folks something for nothing. This is a drain on our entire economy.)

Over-condemning our hc system can lead to over-reaching solutions as are currently being proposed.

No system of health care is perfect. But neither is most methods of accounting for it.

For instance, the nhs was originally partly set up because the post war government needed the population to be healthy to rebuild Britain. It was far from a gift to the less wealthy, it was cold headed maths.

It is medical advance, growing longevity and our growing sense of entitlement that is causing problems, really, in terms of perception. The actual reality of the treatment and even the care is as good in the nhs as elsewhere for most people for most things.

Perhaps a tragedy of the commons scenario.

That’s what it means…

Trying to argue against him saying it is entirely free is nothing but a strawman argument. He said no such thing.

http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/tag/health-care/

http://management.curiouscatblog.net/category/health-care/

http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2009/03/24/usa-spent-22-trillion-162-of-gdp-on-health-care-in-2007/

http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2008/02/09/international-health-care-system-performance/

I am surprise so many people seem willing to accept such horrible performance. It seems to me they must think the USA is just plain incompetent if they believe such bad performance is acceptable. If they had any confidence in the ability of the USA to be reasonably successful they certainly would not defend the horrible current performance. But if you just think we are too lame to do any better then I guess it makes sense to say others can do much better but we just are not good enough to do so. I don’t share the low opinion of the possibility for the USA to have a decent performance in health care that those defending the current bad system do.

But health insurance and out of pocket expenses that Americans experience are probably higher than the difference in taxes for many people. My company’s health care plan is probably average and in my opinion, it is very expensive for the coverage. We also have copays.

Any system has to be paid for – it’s just a matter of where the money comes from. In the US, individuals are largely responsible, while in the UK and many other European countries, the money comes from a collective pot.