Um. What did 90% of your rant have to even do with healthcare?

At any rate, according to NHS.uk, the budget for their system stands at 90 billion pounds. This is approximately 17% of your countries entire budget per year. At an average tax rate of 35%, this would mean that approximately 5.95% of every dollar earned is taxed for NHS. A little lower than my 10% estimate, but it's close.

One should note that in America, 20% of our current federal budget is for Medicare/Medicaid which is not comprehensive, and only benefits a few people. This would translate to the average American spending 5.4% of each dollar earned for Medicaid/Medicare, despite the fact it is not universal. So for 0.5% more, NHS covers everyone.

Now I must ask you: Do you honestly think that, in America, we can raise taxes by 0.5% and cover every man, woman, and child to have comprehensive healthcare? I doubt that you'd agree with that statement.

The American system is broken. Socialization will not help. Look at the hard numbers: We already spend 5.4% of every dollar earned for medicare/medicaid, which benefits 20% of the population. This means that our system is in dire need of repair, and not in dire need of socialization. If we were to give comprehensive care like the UK does via NHS, we may be adding on an extra 20% of taxation merely for healthcare! Again, we must fix our own house before we build on to it.

As for the off color comment about my parents, and what they taught me:

My family is proudly 5th generation Democrat. My mother's side of the family has held office for multiple generations, and are certainly left-leaning.

My parents are pro-universal/socialized healthcare. There have been many a times I can remember my mother crying because she saw an elderly person, or someone in need of medical services, and going on a discourse on how every person needs covered in a unversal system. So don't bring my background into this, because you really, really don't know it.

I was forced to live out of a sleeping bag for a few months thanks to the evil oil empire that many rant and rave about - they (litterally) destroyed the house my family lived in, which led to months of torment and anguish. We never saw a dime out of the mess, and the powerful oil lawyers blockade any compensation. Hyper-capitalism at it's 'finest'.

I was also born into abject poverty, and know first hand the needs of the poor. My family has been classified for 80-90% of my life as being legally classified as being in poverty. Rather than work government programs to help themselves, they decided to go another route and use charitable services that chose to help my family, rather than steal from hard working people that did not give of themselves. In fact, the only reason I have eyesight at all was due to a sight-saving procedure that was not government funded, but paid for by local charities over 15 years ago. So again, I know the values of privately-backed socialism. We both have the same idea about helping others being good (socialism), but it comes from different sources. You prefer the government to force solutions, I prefer individuals to provide solutions.

So please, don't give a discourse on my life because you have no idea about it. I came to the value set that I hold because of my choices, and not the choices of those around me.

But most people already pay a sizeable portion of their income to health insurance companies.  And if they don't have health insurance their potential liability can be much higher, and potentially bankrupt them.

Health insurance companies are simply a for-profit middle man who provide no real service.  All they do is transfer money from one person to another and giving nothing back in return.  At least the government would be doing it without taking a slice of the pie for itself.

oops, didnt mean to hit a raw nerve, sorry.
and i am from Australia not the eww-kay!

anywho, yay universal healthcare, boo american healthcare system (as seen in Sicko by Michael Moore)

I prefer the US system. Quality vs. quantity and more money in my paycheck. I don't want to get up at o'dark 30 drive 2 hrs away, wait in line for 3 hrs, and get told I will be fine. No thanks.

I don't have to do that, and get quality treatment if I'm ill. Don't make things up to try and prove your point.

whats this about driving distances and long waits? is that what its like in the US? it is certainly not here.

Canada I believe.

Viper1 said: mrstickball said: Sam - I think they do pay full price. Of course, we now have the wide, wonderful world of generic prescriptions, which are rapidly driving down costs. What used to cost $50 per 30 day supply now costs $5. Free market economics This is exactly along the lines of what I was speaking of before. Despite having multiple companies in every facet of health care, the principles of free economic capitalism do not exist for most fo it. This brand name vs generic prescription example just illustrates how drastic the costs can be reduced when free market capitalism is allowed to work properly.   Other problems with the American health care system is actually over caring.   For some reason, Americans run to the emergency room for damn near everything.  Paper cut? Call an ambulance.   It's documented that we use our emergency rooms far more than any other nation AND for more frivilous purposes.  This is compounded by having the most follow ups (come back next week and we'll see how that paper cut is doing).   Another issue is no open wards.  Every patient is in a room with no more than 1 other patient; most are in private rooms.  It's also noted that every manner of personnel is paid higher than any other nation.  Let's not forget malpractice isurance for the doctors themselves.  That cost has skyrocketed the past decade.  On offshoot of this is the issuance of non-necessary tests and scans just to be extra thorough to avoid malpractice lawsuits.   The Regression Equation of GDP per capita and health care speing per capita suggest the US should be paying $4,819 (2006 figures) but we actually paid $6,714 (2006 figures) - way higher than any other developed nation.   What I noted above is the reasons why.

Again, maybe some, if not many of the deadlier illnesses (i.e. cancer, aids, etc.) for which we don't have a cure, will have a single way of being healed. Now, as I said earlier, patent the drug and you have exclusive rights to it for 20 years to do with whatever. No one else can produce it, nothing. So... WHAT free market economy there? Please illustrate to me how your system would work under these conditions. And remember, this is a business that is the only one that can produce something that is extremely needed by many people. Do you honestly believe they will drive down their price and allow everyone use of it, cause I sure as hell don't.

Businesses and ncesseities (and I mean actual necessities) DO NOT MIX.

Without free market you wouldn't have a cure to begin with, as no one would take the risk without the reward. So it takes 20 years for the poor to have access to it. Better then the rich and poor never having access to it.

Edit: when I say rich, I really mean the 85% of the country that can afford it. Not just the rich.

Now that's just an outright lie. Again, you can say whatever about NASA and contractors but ultimately where did the money come from? The government, and wehre did it get its money? Us, by taxing us. So it's pretty obvious when shit needs to get done it gets done so stop lying to yourself and everyone else with these fabrications.