Your math is horrible or your quite misinformed between pounds and the euro.
£35,000 = $70,000 US dollars.

In addition you live in one of the few states with no state income tax, but in the majority of US states, you have to add roughly 9% more to your federal taxes paid to get your true cost of taxes paid in income taxes. So your 25% is really 34% so 6% lower in actual paid income tax. Now you still have to pay for your health insurance and like a lot of Americans, copays and deductibles on top of that and fees for prescriptions and such.

Factor that in and I think your even if not paying more considering that if you make $5k more you pay an extra 3% in federal taxes.

Why do you consider health care a right?


There in lies the philosophically difference between many Americans and our European counterparts, many here want the least amount of government intervention in our day to day lives.

Americas health care system is socialized, we're just doing it the expensive way.

Yeah hit the spot Axeman well said

It is a basic fundamental issue - like having food to eat and air to breath in any civilized society. It is not about money or any opinions (other than those of a medical practioner) when an individual is suffering, has a serious health condition or has limbs hanging off which need urgent surgical procedures.

At the same time, it is an obligation and common sense for any individual to look after their own health issues to avoid the need for medical intervention. This can include using preventative medicine to reduce the need for more serious action in the future. Preventative medicine has a serious postive impact at both an individual level, but also in the overall economy of every business/country.

The key phrase in health is "accessable healthcare" and there is no reason on earth why any civilized society should not have this - if they don't, it is a fundamental failure. Accessible healthcare means "instant" action regardless of cost considerations.

Whatever is it labelled - socialized medicine or whatever term, - it is a reflection of any region/nation when it cannot, or has not made provision to aid it's own taxpayers/citizens who may need medical attention and who may fall between the cracks. Again... the keyphrase is "socially responsible". Whether any government has the aptitude to mange this efficiently is another matter - unfortunately most governments are useless in many areas and bogged down in bureaucracy.

Almost all industrialized countries have a government monitored healthcare system in place, but - there are also options for the private sector within most of these situations. An individual can elect to have private healthcare if they wish and accomodated within private clinics at a cost.

There is no evidence that healthcare can be left to private enterprise and delivered at an acceptable cost (forgetting everyone will complain about any cost). The responsibity of any private enterprise is to produce profits for their shareholders and this can fall into conflict with medical recommendations on healthcare. In the US this is further complicated by HMO's/insurance companies and the pharamceutical industry who have been given a blank check to charge whatever they like for supplying pills to the public - and to hospital groups. (On the pharma companies - no other nation on earth would permit the advertising of medical products in the media to the extent allowed in the US. The person who is paying for that level of excessive advertising is the public and at a rip off price.)

On any government operated system there are plenty grounds for having doubts. At the same time, the acid test is what the governments of all industrialized countries (excluding the US) have achieved so far on healthcare. This has been relatively successful, tho may have regional variations, but doubtful many people would elect to change their nation's universal healthcare system - it is clearly more cost-effective and delivers an acceptable standard of quality than a private sector alternative.


Depends what you mean by socialized. There appears to be a conflict between "socialized" and for profit. At an individual level, ie... doctors and nursing staff - they, at least in the majority, are excellent and elected to enter their professions not because of salaries, but thru a genuine interest and being socially responsible.

The other angle to that are the private sector managers and hospital groups owners who have a totally different agenda - namely to produce a profit for shareholders. By it's nature, any corporation is predatory and they have nothing to do with being socialized - although they may produce advertising to portray how "caring" they are. But.... the sole object is to create customers, sell to these customers at the highest price possible and show a healthy profit/loss statement (classic description of pharmaceutical companies).

Would suspect the only "socialized" element of the US system remains with the actual medical staff - docs and nurses and very few others.

I disagree with your idea of basic health care being a fundamental right because its flat out wrong. By definition a fundamental right is a right that has its origin in a country's constitution or that is necessarily implied from the terms of that constitution. Nowhere in the US constitution does it mention right to free or affordable health care, I think you are confusing a fundamental right with moral obligation.

By stating that America has a socialized med system already I was referring to how everyone who is need of medical treatment gets in by going to the hospital even if they don't have insurance they will still be treated and who ends up paying for it? Everyone else, hence my statement.

While I do agree that our health system needs some help, trust me I heard it growing up since both my parent are physicians, part of the blame needs to be put on the American public themselves. We aren't the healthiest bunch by our own doing, many are obese obese, smoke, drink excessively, eat at fast food joints everyday, sit in front of the TV/internet all day, never exercise?

Not only are Health Insurance companies screwing people, but now in Maryland, they just passed a law that if you are not insured, you have to pay fines.

Try to guess who wanted this law passed?

Its pretty good, u might get the odd long wait in A&E for a non emergency - but free health care rules!

You pay 40% for most middle class people. In the US, it's about 25% for the same person. In fact, we don't have a rate over 35%.

So if you make $100,000 a year, you'll pay around 28% in the US and 40% in the UK. That's a difference in $12,000 a year, and $1000 a month. You can easily provide the best health insurance for your family for under that.

Your forgetting about state income tax which most states have. for $100k rate your looking at about 9% on top of the 28% federal.

Now if your in one of those states with no state income tax, then yes its a savings and you can pay for your increased health care and hope they don't ever try to fuck you.

Does this mean they won't be able to deny people insurance for pre existing? Also any mention of reasonable rates for these people or is it a free for all where they get charged ridiculous fees or risk the fine?

You may disagree on the words of healthcare being a "right" (call it a moral obligation or whatever), but that is the basic concept surrounding healthcare in most industrialized countries. Namely - "everyone" is entitled to medical treatment irrespective of "how nasty" they may be or what it may cost etc.

The US Constitution is an excellent document and obviously considered carefully by those who participated in drafting that document. The world has moved on in a few hundred years - and will continue to move forward. Agree that there is no specific provision in the US Constitution for healthcare - however that was never the guidelines for the rest of the industrialized world and, least most of them, do provide healthcare as a right - and not necessarily with any basic changes to their constitution.

It may be worth noting that any industrialized country would freely provide healthcare to any individual from the US should they need this while travelling. Call it a moral obligation or whatever - but the net result is back to that keyphrase "accessable healthcare".

BTW... Nothing on this planet is "flat out wrong" - there are millions of shades of grey :)

Only a couple states have rates as high as you state. And the ones that do, are progressive, and only effect the top couple percent of income earners. 20% of the states don't even have a state income tax, and the most of the rest are only a couple percent.

http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/ind_inc.html

80% of the states have state tax. Looking at this list it looks like the average person with 100K a year would be in the 6-7% range with 25 of the states having 6% or higher.

It should also be noted on the tax argument that by going to universal health care you would not be paying more in taxes and if the government tried to snowball you into believing that, then your getting fucked and should vote in people who won't lie to you.

The reality is the US pays double what the canadian government does per tax payer for health care already. And nearly 14% of your GDP is spent on health care which is 3% higher than any socialized nation.

With proper health care focusing on preventive care your taxes spent per person on health care should normal itself out to that of Canada, France, Britain, Sweden etc which is nearly half your current levels.

So if anything your taxes should decrease unless the government can justify where your extra taxes saved were now being spent and who's pockets it ended up in.

At 6 or even 9 percent, someone making $100,000 is still only paying 27-31% in taxes.

Damn... classic predatory action - and no need to guess on which lobby group pressured that into action and who has a common interest either way. Sounds like a no-brainer for all interest parties :pimp

LOL - You mean 34-37% if you use the 6 or even 9 percent state.

28% of that is federal taxes.

when i was young i had tons of ear infections...

if we lived in the US im sure that my parents wouldnt of been able to afford the bill and we wouldnt be living nice thats for sure...:\

Please stop! You are forgeting FICA, FUTA, etc add almost 10% more to any that you are paying in the US then add State income tax if you live in a State with income tax. Then add the cost of health insurance!

If you are self employed the rate is 15.3% PLUS your income tax, plus your State Tax. So the rates are higher than you think. If you have a job you only pay 1/2 of the 15.3%, still 7.6% plus your income taxes

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...=98846,00.html

You are the one who came in stating health care is a fundamental right, not my fault that it's not. If calling it a shade of grey makes you feel better by all means but until there is an amendment in the Bill of Rights, granting free health care to all Americans, you're wrong.

It's a moral issue not a rights issue and the government has no place pushing morality on it's citizens, do they try? you bet but that doesn't make it right and being in this business you should be firmly against that.

As for your claim about how "The rest of the world is doing it", you must not be to familiar with Americans as we like to buck the trend and do things our own way, it's been like that since 1776

I wonder if the continual devaluing of the American dollar reflects that attitude.

No, I calculated the federal wrong at first. At $100,000, you only pay 22% taxes.

If you work for yourself, it's best to form an S-Corp to help offset that tax.

I don't really give a toss what it's called - that's just semantics. I also don't give a shit what the US Bill of Rights says - that never was a guide to healthcare.

Who said anything about government "pushing morality on it's citizens"?? Not me. Don't tell me how to think next because I am "in this business" - it matters little what I think - the issue of healthcare has already been decided upon by almost all other western nations, - not by you or me.

Mmmm.. to be honest I also don't give a shit about how "Americans like to buck the trend" - that's not my problem. It is apparently yours. I don't care what the US does - it's not my business unless it gets in my face. The only issue which did affect me was having to pay for my US friends medical bills because the system failed miserably.

The core issue has nothing to do with the US Bill of Rights or "bucking trends" or "opinions". It relates entirely to providing accessible healthcare - you either have this or not.

Wrong. I know it seems easy to just look at the top marginal tax rate and think that 28% or 40% of the income is paid in tax, but it's not the way it works. Tax brackets are tiered systems. By making that assumption you are way off the mark.

In the US if you earn US$100,000 you'll pay US$22,331 + state income tax.
In the UK you'll pay US$26,952 - a US$4621 difference..
Which is basically the same amount as the state income tax on average. So the AVERAGE person on 100k in the US pays the EXACT SAME amount as the average person in the UK. If you live in a minority of states with no income tax you save $4621.. giving you $385 a month insurance. Not the best.

The American tax system only really works better for the well off. While there is no real difference at 100k.. at 200k that 40% would have really eaten into it if you were in the UK. Of course you're only talking about 1% of people here. Not the vast majority.

it works over here fine... Do you in America also have to pay for mental health care.

It doesn't make sense how can your government be so selfish, you shouldn't be making money out of the sick

so there u go we pay the same tax as americans and we get better public transport and free healthcare

oh and also here you can live off benefits or as you call it welfare, which you cant live off in america...

ahhh i love the uk

Don't even go there *lol*

Tho maybe not so extreme, but a few Euro and other countries also have a way to go when it comes to mental health. That always was left at the bottom of the in tray. At least that is not yet another financial burden placed on an individual who is mentally ill - and possibly to the extent of selling all assets to pay for it.

In Canada if your condition is life threatening you get same day service (or next morning service) buy if you have a relatively minor injury then you hop on the waiting list for surgery. For example: major stroke = instant MRI, ligament damage in shoulder = waiting list.

Then there are also differences in the quality of care you will recieve depending on the province you're in. Alberta = not too shabby, British Columbia = annoying.

How can you say that? A third of our country pays nothing in income tax. The top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes. The top 5% alone pay 56% of the taxes. Heck, the bottom 20% of earners actually get money back.

Basically 50% of our country is paying for everything. I don't see how that benefits just the wealthy?

WOW you obviously cant grasp the simple concept of fundamental rights even though you like to toss the term around. Learn the definition of a word before you misuse it again.

If you don't give a shit about The Bill of Rights then you don't give a shit about fundamental rights since you can not have one without the other. Here I'll simplify it for you since that seems to be the only way you can understand.

A fundamental right is a right that has its origin in a country's constitution or that is necessarily implied from the terms of that constitution. These fundamental rights usually encompass those rights considered natural human rights.

Morality refers to the concept of human action which pertains to matters of right and wrong?also referred to as "good and evil"?used within three contexts: individual conscience; systems of principles and judgments?sometimes called moral values?shared within a cultural, religious, secular or philosophical community; and codes of behavior or conduct morality.

So as I'm saying for the third time and and maybe you might get it, a person has no right to health care but people feel moral obliged to offer it. Hence government dictating socialized medicine is not exercising rights its dictating morality.

Now I'm for people having access to affordable health care from a moral standpoint, I've had insurance all of my life and never had a single problem so its easy for me to say fuck them all but I would probably have a hard time sleeping at night.

So in essence , you have as much a right to health care as you do a drivers license.

I'll repeat once more.... I have rights to healthcare in the same way all individuals have under a universal healthcare system. What bit do you not understand???

I'll also repeat - I don't care what the US Bill of Rights has to say - that's your concern. My interest in the US Bill of Rights goes as far as my interest in the rights of any nation. Shall we discuss the rights issues of Canada or any other western nation instead of trying to talk about self??

The issue and the subject of the thread is not about Bills of Rights - it's about the ability to get accessible healthcare. I don't care about your agenda or bullshit - if anything I care more about US people who cannot get healthcare than bothering about the Bill of Rights.

I never saw a doctor yet who managed to use the Bill of Rights in his treatment process - tho maybe a few copies could be used to wipe the blood up after an operation.

I think you're getting confused.

Thats because I didn't say that. I said the US system was better for the wealthy than the UK system. I thought I laid that out fairly clearly by showing that the top UK tax rate really only starts to kick in and start making a difference around US$100k.


On a side note, the top 5% paying 50% of all taxes is just a statistical eventuality of having rich people paying a higher tax bracket.. it's the same everywhere. Even with a flat tax the richest 5% will pay more a disproportionate amount.. it's a bit like saying 100 is a higher number than 10.

Note: you pay half your S-corp employer pays the other half. Net savings =zero

Leaving grammatical errors aside, this still makes no sense.

Smart Americans don't dislike universal healthcare because of jingoisms like "socialism."

The reason we oppose it is because it creates big government, which is inefficiant, costly, and prone to corruption. Lots of people will take from it, but only some will contribute to it. It's the tragedy of the commons. The cure is worse than the disease.

Let private charity provide more to the poor and indigent.

That said, the US healthcare system is broken. There are probably legislative fixes that can help it.

The free market system works very well most of the time. When it doesn't, you use legislation to tweak it. You don't throw out the baby (capitalism) with the bathwater (broker healthcare/ corporate abuses).

Michael Moore is also a lousy filmmaker from a technical stand point.

All the conflicting audios made the movie unbearable.

In Australia we don't have perfect healthcare, but in comparison to America I am really really fortunate to be here and not there! It's not perfect here, but its definitely working.

he is lousy thats funny.