Our system is horrible. People that work pay around 10 euro a month for healthcare and around 2 euro when they need to see a doctor. The general doctors have limited number of "medical paths" per month and have to be careful on who they use them. Stay in the hospitals is co-funded. Operational procedures are co-funded. ER is free. Dental is horribly underfunded.
I had an accident 1 month ago. My General practitioner is in my home town 200 km away and when I twisted my ankle I had to pay for everything as if i wasn't ensured because I had no Health Card. Check from an orthopedist, X-ray, pills and salves cost me 60 euro. If I had my Health Card and I had gone to my GP it would have cost me half.
The National Health Fund doesn't do a good job.
“Worse than a feud with the Anglo-Saxons can only be a friendship with them.” - Alexej Jedrichin–Wandram
Even the article you posted doesn't show a 20% discrepancy. In fact, the article you linked doesn't even include any information on how much Great Britain spends on healthcare in comparison to the USA. It even concedes that the vast majority of that spending isn't even public.
That list goes from over 7k (US) to 4K (France) per person. The UK isn't on that list, which means... that a US citizen spends more than 20% more than anyone in the UK.
47.7% of 7'960 = 3'796.92 per person
The United Kingdom spend $3'268 per person in 2010. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...countries.html)
That's not a 20% difference.
And even it were it doesn't speak to the point that was being made, that Americans are charged 20% more in public health tax than Brits, which is absolute nonsense because there is no way to quantify that statement, as there are so many different variables in the American tax system as it related to public health spending vs. the British system.
And that doesn't even matter, it's not even the point.
The point is that Grim Retailer said that Americans pay 20% more in public health tax than do Brits. That has absolutely nothing to do with what the total amount of spending per person is.
Now, there is a field of economics called "Health Care Economics". Where speicalist economists spend time quantifying just that sort of thing.I don't know where the notion that "There is no way to quantify that" comes from?
Now, if you want to compare spending in the US with spending in the UK, table 2 here is pretty good.Note that US 2009 public spending is 3795 $ per person per year. The UKs is 2935. A difference of 26 %.
You can also briely skim this, which gives a quick overview of the financial situation of the US healthcare system. As the report says:
"However, the overall level of health spending in the United States is so high that public (i.e. government)
spending on health per capita is still greater than in all other OECD countries, except Norway and the
The first table I linked even shows out-of-pocket and private spending as separate columns. I don't suppose anyone here is clever enough to paste it?