Ok I'm in the U.S. and I have great health insurance through my wife's work. It costs us $170 per month for coverage for the entire family. We pay an additional $30 or so a month for our prescriptions.

I'm looking at the the UK NIC tax chart http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ni[...]38.pdf and asking why should someone who went to school, worked hard, maybe started their own business and earns the equivalent of $60000 a year, pay about $1200per month in the UK. Now if you only make the equivalent of $2000 per month, again your own business so you are paying both sides, you only have to pay about $260 per month.

I want someone to intelligently explain why the person who worked hard to make more money has to pay 5 times as much for what I would think is the same health care coverage in the UK?

Often the U.S. health system is attacked because of the number of people without insurance. The facts are the poor receive medicaid which provides basic care and all hospitals are required to provide emergency service regardless of someones ability to pay. Many of the uninsured are younger individuals that choose to buy new cars, flat screen TV's and anything else other than health insurance. So again, why should I compensate for their irresponsible behavior?

I'm just curious, I hate reading stories like Stefy's and wonder why they caught her blood pressure issue so late and now she is penalized and has to wait months just to find out when it may be rescheduled. Geez!!!! That is not right.

I don't mean this to be mean to any countries health system, obviously we learn how to best deal with what is available.

Hugs,
Marsha

Karen,
Your reply is so crazy. First off I said most, not all. Here is a statistic you can sit down with and think about. As of 2005 in the U.S.(latest statistics available), 16% of the population was uninsured. 75% of those uninsured were above the poverty line. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation September 22, 2005 http://aspe.hhs.gov/ By the way, the poverty line for a family of 4 in the U.S. for 2008 is $21,200.

Next you said the poor can't get to the clinics, as if in the UK limousines come pick everyone up and take them to the clinic. And you said the clinics are underfunded, why don't you ask some of the UK gals who are waiting to get into the gender program overthere about what underfunded really means.

Next you said they might have to wait allday to see the doctor. Uhm, Stefy is waiting 4 months just to hear when her appointment might be.

And yes Karen I do know how much insurance costs because I have owned my own business for 15 years now, I have four kids, and until a few years ago when my wife went back to work I paid for the insurance out of my own pocket. I make a decent income, I'm not rich, I pay both sides of the FICA taxes along with a healthy income tax. I worked hard to get what I have and I am tired of watching freeloaders abuse our system. Yes there are truly disabled and disadvantaged people out there that I don't mind helping. But for those that make stupid decisions like dropping out of school and not even getting a high school education, they can wait at the end of the line.

Do you want to really know what poor is? It is not any of the people who have ever been to TW, nor anyone considered poor in the U.S. The real poor are the approximately 52% of the worlds population that live on less than $2 u.s. per day. Along with paying my bills, I give money to charity to help the disadvantaged, and I know some of those charities are nonprofit clinics to help those who can't afford to see a doctor. What do you do? Government has proven time and time again that it is inept at running any social program. So besides wanting more government handouts that I have to pay for, I ask again what do you do?

Two things bother me about the health care "industry" in the USA are:
1. Most are "for profit" companies ie they have stock holders.
2. They dictate to their subscribers what medication to take.
For example: They'll pay for generics but wont pay for the original meds.

Mary,
My argument on people who don't like for profit organizations that report to stockholders is if you think they make too much money, then buy their stock. My dad used that argument against the oil companies, I told him to buy oil stock and he did, he weathered the last storm better than most.

As for them dictating medications I do have to agree with you there because I would prefer avodart instead of proscar as part of my HRT. The trade off though is if enough insurance companies won't cover the other brand, eventually the pharmaceutical companies lower the price so it will be covered. It takes awhile but that is supply and demand economics.

And Karen, I don't mean to argue with you, we obviously view the situation from different angles.

Hugs,
Marsha

Koala,
I'm actually not arguing other than asking what is the rationale for someone having to pay 5 times as much for the same health care in the UK. I only brought it up because I think it is awful how Stefy was treated when she went for her SRS. I question why her blood pressure wasn't monitored all along and now the result is she has to wait months only to find out when she might get to go in for her surgery again. That is ridiculous.
Hugs,
Marsha

Sue,
Thank you for taking the time to do such an informative reply. You are so right about how only the bad side of things make the news, just like all other stories. My biggest complaint about a socialist system is there is always a breaking point where there is no incentive to work harder or earn more because government taxes will take any gains. It sounds like at your pay rate the NIC deduction is reasonable. The figure you gave is consistant with what I saw, except I used an example of someone who works for themselves and therefore would pay both the employee and employer share.

Also you stated if you don't ask for it, you don't get it, when it comes to stuff like blood pressure checks. That is also consistant with my sister-in-laws description of Sweden's health care. She has been a resident of Sweden for approximately 40 years now. My experience here, and I go to the doc every two weeks for my estradial injections, is they take my blood pressure at every visit. Hopefully anyone who has seen Stefy's situation will learn from it.

Thanks again. Hugs,
Marsha

As has already been said we only ever hear bad news not good.
Whenever we talk about Charing Cross GIC no seems to praise it. Well I have nothing but good to say about it. MY problems came from the Primary Care Trust putting delaying tactics in place.
My first two appointments at CX (three months apart) got me my two recommendations for surgery. The PCT then refused to pay for my surgery.
CX worked hand in hand with my GP and endocrinologist. One thing that has to be remembered about CX is that there you deal with psychiatrists - medical matters are dealt with by my GP.

Alina

Marsha is correct where the NIC an employee pays the employer has to pay similar amounts.

i would say from my experience it wouldnt be too far out if i said it costs a company 20% more than the wages to employ someone. eg if someone earnt 20k the company costs would be at least 24k.

thats is nothing tho, considering the all the other costs incurred when employing someone, ie health & safety certification, public liability insurance, payroll & accoutant fees, solicitors fees.

theres always going to be good points and bad points to any system. i think human nature, or is it just the media, like to dwell on all the problems and not the successes.

socialism would work if it wasnt for human nature, hence the comunist utopian dream will never be realised. however, capitalism is just legalised corruption. just depends on what is made legal and what isnt. we all know how corrupt the old CCCP was, no different to the capitalist world where it just made legal thats all.

you know, governments are the only financial bodies that dont have to publically release their accounts. thats only to ensure that we dont find out that as tax payers we get very little in return for our pound or dollar as the case may be.

they say london is having a population explosion yet no more houses have been built, thats why the council taxes are going thro the roof to cope with the demand on services. hold on a min, wasnt that what poll tax was supose to overcome? how did the immigrants who live 8 to a house in stead of the usual 4 manage to defeat the poll tax, or was it some indiginous bunch of numpties?

woop, sorry marsha! didnt mean to go off on one! lol

Penny,
You are so right about the cost of employing others. Most employess only see what is on their paychecks and have no clue what is involved running a business.

As for your rant on socialist/communist/capitalist systems, you have made a good point. I believe the most important thing any of us can do is take charge of our own lives. You need to learn about and understand as much as possible so you can make the most out of which ever system you live under. Unfortunately, so many just stand there with their hands out waiting for someone else to do something for them, coming up with all sorts of excuses why they can't help themselves and why the rest of the world is to blame. Those are the people who drag all societies down. And before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not talking about truly disabled people.

Hugs,
Marsha

It's very typical of the UK, not just the health system. The more you earn, the more the state takes from you. If you're wealthy you will be ok, if you are a low earner you are often ok since the state bales you out a lot. If however, you are a hard working 'middle class' type, you are in no-mans land. You pay the same as the wealthy but with less income to begin with, and don't get any assistance from the state.

For example, I earn too much to have financial aid for my nose job from the NHS, but in reality my pay isn't so great at all. Youth workers don't get rich!

The country is screwed and is going down the toilet, and I do mean that as an attack on my own country.

What happened? Where did it all go wrong?

Nikki

Often the U.S. health system is attacked because of the number of people without insurance. The facts are the poor receive medicaid which provides basic care and all hospitals are required to provide emergency service regardless of someones ability to pay. Many of the uninsured are younger individuals that choose to buy new cars, flat screen TV's and anything else other than health insurance. So again, why should I compensate for their irresponsible behavior?

That is a very uninformed statement. In areas where you find the poor doctors don't open offices. There might be a clinic where it takes allday to see a doctor & is so underfunded that most test can't be done there. If they choose to go to a hospital E.R. first they have to find a way there & can be so over crowded that it takes hours.
Also have you priced insurance. To get evan a halfway decent policy can be hundreds of dollors a month for a small family.

We could go back & forth on this, but no.
We have different opinions or we're looking at it different.

I'm just curious what you are arguing here Marsha? I don't mean that in a negative way but I can't really follow.

What are you arguing?
that taxes are too high in the UK?
that the UK NHS is too costly?
the US system is more cost effective (more care for every $ spent)?
the US system result in a healthier population? compared to what? for poor people? on average? for rich people? for you?
that you think medicare and medicaid should be abandoned so you don't have to pay for irresponsible people making bad decisions?

I used to read up a little on different health care systems when I was involved in politics so I have heard a lot of arguments from all sides and I really like hearing more, I'm just not sure I follow what you are arguing here

Yes at least the endocrinologist should have caught that way sooner. Pretty awful and really surprising that they didn't really.

I can only go on my own figures.
I am paid approximately $2400/month, quite reasonable pay for the area. (Most are on less than that, nearer $1800/month).
From that I pay <$150/month for total health cover, (not including dental and eyecare).
For what I get, that seems reasonable.
Like all things UK, it is worked on a percentage basis. For those on a low to middle income, which covers a large part of the population, it works in our favour. For those in the higher pay brackets, as with taxes, the more you get, the more they assume you can afford. In this country it has always been thus, and unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
I ain't saying I agree with it, but there is nothing I can do about it. So I just join everyone else in moaning about it!

As for Stefy's case, I know personally that Charing Cross' standards of care are abysmal. You only get what you ask for, including BP and other blood tests, and when they do do those, if the test results are ok, they say nothing unless you ask. And when I did, all I got was 'the results are normal'.
My own blood pressure went through the roof in a matter of months, and with their appointments six months apart, no way would they pick it up. Especially if you didn't ask them every time you went. They leave it to the GP, so there is a large element of looking after oneself involved. Of course CX should tell you this, but they didn't me. I can only assume they apply the same lack of communication to everyone else.
The prescription I had was the same as that for Stefy, Atenolol, and it worked quickly, in conjunction with bendrofluahydrazide, and I am now on a maintenance dose of the latter. And the cause? Oral hormones! Off them and onto epidermal patches, and I'm fine.
It will take time for her BP to return to 'normal' levels, hence the quoted four month wait. It might reduce more quickly, but no-one can be that accurate. And their average booking in time for surgery is three months, though obviously she will be prioritised. So 'she has to wait months to find out' is not strictly accurate. Once again, CX' lack of accurate and informative communication can be blamed.

I will say that apart from my experiences with CX, I have only good things to say about the NHS, and they have been worth every penny.

I guess that it works both ways, and, as usual, we in the UK only hear the worst aspects of the US system, and vice versa. I think both have their positives and their downsides.
With regard to transgender, I reckon we are slightly ahead. We get treated, regardless of circumstances, though some areas fare better than other when it comes to resources.

This is being addressed as I write, with more GIC's coming online to serve everyone, now it has been nationally recognised that there is a need. Like all large corporations, it will take time, but moves are already underway. I got this from a leading specialist this week, who recently attended a national meeting, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, as I don't need to be told optimistic stories any more, and he knows that.