Not sure what you mean by we but most Americans do want government involved in healthcare, the parts that do work have government involved.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-by-democrats/
Not sure what you mean by we but most Americans do want government involved in healthcare, the parts that do work have government involved.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-by-democrats/
Government doesnt pay for shit for me except my salary for my work. I pay a portion of my healthcare, and the rest I earn through my blood sweat and tears as I toil away at work every day. People who get subsidies are getting more from the government than I am
- - - Updated - - -
I pay $44 every 2 weeks so that would be $1144 (£853) per annum.
Sorry, but you've already said you get insurance with good coverage from your employer. Now when that employer happens to be the government, it's the government that pays all your crap for you. You are not paying for private poor coverage insurances like many others.
Shouldn't you be appalled by the government welfare stick you are receiving in the form of good insurance, that many don't have? Or is the welfare suddenly fine when you don't call it that in your own case, but everyone elses?
Not sure how accurate this is but going off the link below:
http://us.thetaxcalculator.net/#
The equivalent salary to £30k ($40k), you would pay $7,033 in income tax which is around £900 less than you would pay in the UK. Would people in the US not rather pay this small amount of additional tax to ensure you and your family no matter what health they are in do not need to worry about the financial implications of their healthcare?
Its not welfare when its part of your compensation package for WORKING for the government. I bust my ass for 40 hours a week for that "welfare". Funny how you dont call it welfare when someone working for Ford gets the same thing
- - - Updated - - -
Not when Im already getting insurance for the lesser amount that I am already paying. I dont give a shit if Ichabod Wilson down the block has insurance or not
Apart from the waiting times, the NHS has always been good for me and my family.
However. I would not oppose a small segment of it going private.
"I pay a portion" bwahahahahahahahaha
Welfare queen.
- - - Updated - - -
The rest of the developed world is already able to cover their citizens for the same that our government ALREADY spends. All private healthcare spending in this country is a pointless rip off. We could afford universal healthcare without a cent more in taxes.
"stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
-ynnady
NHS is awesome, don't like it go private
I once rang up late morning and could not get an appointment until a couple of hours later...bloody disgrace!
People really should learn to ignore Orlong
Also my mother got an MRI on NHS straight away
British hospitals are rated amongst the worst in Europe, so their health system can't be that amazing.
http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/file...016_report.pdf
The UK scores pretty poorly, 15th in the EU.
Last edited by mmoc925aeb179c; 2017-07-17 at 07:26 PM.
Yes, it's in function of the EU. You can read through it, they explain their rankings in depth.
Then again the UK's score suffers a lot in terms of accessibility and queue times for patients, it's where they lost the majority of their points on.
A good healthcare system is one that works for the entire population, and works fast and efficiently.
Last edited by mmoc925aeb179c; 2017-07-17 at 07:31 PM.
The wait times where my GP is are minimal, as I joked earlier I once had to wait a couple of hours for an appointment. When I lived in London the wait times were virtually non-existant as well, so not just a more rural area. It seems to be something of a postcode lottery as to how quickly you will be seen.
I do tend to live in affluent areas though, so maybe that affects it and in poorer parts of the country you wait longer.
Thank you for the explanation.
I know that NHS is the public system, I was talking about my country's public system. Here if you rely on it you are fucked, but if you can afford private insurance you will get a pretty good treatment.
The way I see it you can either have high taxes and a good universal health care system or you can have lower taxes and only people that can/choose to afford insurance (or can afford to pay the whole price) will have access to it. On the other hand, lower taxes means that people will have more money to spend wherever they want and the choice to take the risk of not having health insurance.
I am not saying that one system is superior than the other, I am just saying that it seems to my that Europe had the former while USA had the later.
Last edited by Knolan; 2017-07-17 at 11:01 PM.
WHO dropped healthcare rankings for a reason. It being there are too many factors in healthcare systems to make a proper ranking.
There is a common saying when working with the government, 20% of the people do 80% of the work. I'm positive you fall outside that 20%. "Busting your ass", hahaha. You do data entry IT, pretty much bottom of the totem pole stuff, and based on what you've claimed to make, you're a GG10-11. Sorry, but if you busted your ass so much, plus your military experience and your age, you'd be a 14 by now, right?
And I saw, and behold, a pale horse: and he that sat upon him, his name was Death; and Hades followed with him. And there was given unto them authority over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with famine, and with death, and by the wild beasts of the earth.
I have a hard time believing studies which put UK ahead in the healthcare department.
Especially when the fucking WHO has a much more comprehensive analysis which puts it quite behind (rank 16 to 21) and has much more logical number 1 (France).
Notice that the USA are still pretty much a shithold when it comes to healthcare, being down to 35 to 44 world ranking.