UK healthcare is paid for by taxes, of which roughly around £1000 per tax payer per year on average goes to the NHS, so a 2 adult family with 2 children pays £2000 - £3000 per year per average. US health insurance for a 4 person family was $13,770 annually on average in 2010 before Obamacare. Which is cheaper?
Youre inccorect on both accounts, they aren't based off family size in UK but % of income depending on bracket, most pay between 20-30% income, and their standardized Heathcare also affected property tax, commodities tax, service taxs, ect.
US pays about 10% of income out of pocket. The reason why people like standardized healthcare is because it isn't out of pocket, its removed without notice.
Coverage in the United States in 2011 was $2,196 per year ($183 per month); families paid an average annual premium of $4,968 ($414 per month). The report also found that the average deductible for individually-purchased health insurance plans in 2011 was $2,935 for individuals and $3,879 for families.
I didn't say UK health prices were based on family size, I only specified a 2 adult family so I could compare to prices paid by a 2 adult family in the US. The rate of £1000 on health care is based on the average tax of a UK adult with the UK average income of £26500, divided by the percentage of that tax spent on healthcare. This sum is roughly £1000.
I deleted my tabs about US health insurance but the number on US insurance was directly from a US site. I'll try to look for them. Regardless, based your statistics , the UK is still cheaper in this example, $5000 is still more than £2000 - £3000.
Public healthcare should be cut a little bit ( Canada ) and allow private hospitals to set up, if you want better you can pay for better but if you can't afford it you have something to go.
If you use the public system and don't need it you get a hefty fine that way people who don't need it don't clutter the public system.
Both my premiums and my copays are cheaper.
There are 30million more Americans with insurance now.
The financing is on track to fund the ACA.
The Insurance companies love it.
The Hospitals which accept it love it.
The ACA is a fantastic law.
It needs refinement (and a single payer option), which will come with time, but it's a masterful piece of legislation for those who understand how complex the national legislature can be.
Immortal im going to have to agree to disagree with you on this, hospitals and doctors are scared, insurance companies have gone bankrupt, my family along with several hundred other rural families near mine went without insurance for months because of the ACA, it needs to be reformed.
Vantage insurance in Louisiana, my neighbor state, has added 30,000 new customers this enrollment period.
I meet regularly with one of their reps who works out in Texas, where I am. He loves the ACA. His small insurance business doubled in size this year.
Don't tell me insurers are afraid.
The entire western Kansas (rural), Nebraska (rural), Wyoming (rural) all had issues staying insured, my uncle works for progressive, they had a huge presence in these states and now have little to none. Remember the ACA calls for a state to state packaging, in NE they decided that the state would set what insurance was available and the premiums. Im glad to hear its working where you are because it doesn't work here. And 3 hospitals in Omaha/Lincoln NE alone closed.
Industry employment is up.
Helthcare spending has been growing at the slowest pace in decades, signaling the ACA is more cost efficient:
Doctors aren't scared:
The American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Osteopathic Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American College of Cardiology all endorsed the ACA.
In addition, the added spending power is a boon for the economy. More people than ever are actually paying for their healthcare.
Another group of doctors who are in favor of the ACA:
More Doctors supporting the ACA:
A doctor musing hopefully about the future of the ACA.
Doctors and patients march in support of the law.
Only doctors at HMOs and for profit hospitals seem to have issues with the law, because it holds them accountable for mistreating patients.
Before the ACA, if you have surgery at a hospital and are discharged the doctor and hospital get paid. If you are later re-admitted to the hospital due to complications from the surgery the doctor and hospital get paid for treating your complications.
This is no longer the case. Under the ACA if you come back to the hospital more than 30 days after your surgery with complications the doctor and hospital can actually end up losing money because the ACA holds them accountable. The ACA sees this as an incentive for doctors to keep patients out of the hospital.
For profit doctors are not pleased with being held accountable.
Notice something about the states you listed. None of them built their own exchange sites.
It's their own fault they elected idiotic GOP members.
If you're a doctor who only cares about moving patients in and immediately out of a hospital bed, you could stop being so profit motivated and care more about the patient's health so they don't come back within the month with complications.
Ya but as a doctor youre in severe debt generaly after school, unless Obama is forgiving that then its unfair to them. You die or suffer without them, why should they suffer because you body develops complications that are unanticipated? Why would anyone be a doctor? And ya, maybe we can request to have the moderation removed...
And things like total knee replacement have a huge chance of complications that cant be prevented, should I lose money when everyone knows we cant stop the complication caused by a piece of metal/plastic being placed in someone?
They would suffer from discharging a patient too soon. If a doctor signs a patient out, and they suffer from complications from surgery or treatment. That doctor was in error, and should not be allowed to charge the patient for additional treatment.
What incentive would doctors have to be good doctors if they benefit from having consistently unhealthy patients?
I doubt a doctor would lose any money over a knee replacement complication. But post surgery if the wound developed infection, or if they prescribed incorrect medications, perhaps. This is all only if they improperly discharge a patient too early, which is common practice at HMOs.
The chance of complications rises in patients who are discharged early.
Also, if complications arise while the patient is in hospital, the patient has access to swift care from the very physicians which caused the issue, on the same dime as the original procedure.
The Doctors are forced to do it right, not do it quick and cheap.
Malpractice lawsuits general pass through (61%) [http://www.Medicalmalpractice.Com/national-medical-malpractice-facts.Cfm], the aca seems to abuse doctors, and again. Why would anyone become a doctor if they are going to be constantly harassed by the government and fined.
Immortal, have you been kicked out of a hospital early? Because it would make more sense to keep them in longer to make them pay more, sending them home doesn't always (the majority of the time) result in complications.
"Why would anyone become a doctor if they are going to be constantly harassed by the government and fined."
1. Because it's not constant, it only happens when they screw up.
2. Because the goal of medicine is ultimately to CARE FOR PEOPLE.
3. They still make an exceptionally generous income.
4. If they do their jobs, they don't lose money.
5. Why should an accountable doctor be afraid of scrutiny?
6. Why do you defend a lack of oversight?
Isn't it interesting how you have an unprovable and unsourced anecdote for everything, from your personal story of being stranded on a river, to your uncle who sells insurance where Progressive doesn't sell insurance, in states which don't have exchanges.
To your grandfather, who magically won a lawsuit over the exact hypothetical we're discussing.
Perhaps I'm cynical, but I'm not so gullible.
Im defending people who can be targeted by an abusable system. And someone who makes one minor mistake shouldn't be abused by the govt. That's why hospitals are closing, and doctors are afraid. Someone has to employ them.
All of my stories are true, but I could say the same, to you since your best friends with insurance agents, who aren't afraid. Also, family can live outside of a 50ft parameter of you, my uncle lives in Colorado now.
'That's why hospitals are closing, and doctors are afraid."
That's right, you still haven't told me the names of the hospitals you claim are closing across Nebraska.
What are the names?
"Someone has to employ them."
Or they can go into the largest growing field in medicine, private practice.
"Discharging a patient early would lose you money! How is that greedy?"
Again, you're being obtuse.
Before the ACA, discharging a patient early was a great way to MAKE money.
A patient leaves after surgery, develops complications, and comes back. The doctors then charge again for additional treatment which should have been offered post surgery to begin with.
That's how it's greedy.
Immortal I get where your coming from but I just don't feel the ACA is where I would like it, it needs to be reformed, and complications aren't always going to occur, and in situations when they do its common.
You can't make a blanket statement like "all complications are common" that belies a willful desire to believe what fits with a predisposition.
Do you have any sources to support your claim that complications are "common"
Ya, im not saying all complications are common but situations in witch they do it is, knee surgery, heart surgery, anything where you have a chance of being infected, even you talked about how they occur in hospitals.
But allowing them to leave could result in a fine, see what im going at. If someone doesn't want to stay and pay, then they leave and encounter complications, then doctor gets fined. But doctor forces them to stay, they pay more in hopes to stop a complication that may or may not occur.