1. SPS Accounts:
    Do you find yourself coming back time after time? Do you appreciate the ongoing hard work to keep this community focused and successful in its mission? Please consider supporting us by upgrading to an SPS Account. Besides the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from supporting a good cause, you'll also get a significant number of ever-expanding perks and benefits on the site and the forums. Click here to find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You are currently viewing Boards o' Magick as a guest, but you can register an account here. Registration is fast, easy and free. Once registered you will have access to search the forums, create and respond to threads, PM other members, upload screenshots and access many other features unavailable to guests.

BoM cultivates a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. We have been aiming for quality over quantity with our forums from their inception, and believe that this distinction is truly tangible and valued by our members. We'd love to have you join us today!

(If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you've forgotten your username or password, click here.)

Costs of Universal/Socialized Healthcare

Discussion in 'Alley of Lingering Sighs' started by Aldeth the Foppish Idiot, Jan 25, 2008.

  1. Carcaroth

    Carcaroth I call on the priests, saints and dancin' girls ★ SPS Account Holder

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,655
    Likes Received:
    5
    UK
    It increased to 9.4% of GDP in 2006, from 8.6% in 2004 and 7.1% in 2000.

    From an individual tax payers perspective it is probably impossible to determine - money from National Insurance, Income Tax, Council Tax and I imagine even VAT on sold products will all contribute into the "pot" that goes to the NHS.

    Worth noting that whilst Income Tax and National Insurance hasn't significantly increased since 2000, "stealth" taxes have been introduced, some of which are listed below. Presumably these, and reduced spending in other areas, has paid for the increased spending on the NHS.

    * The gradual reduction of the value - and now the complete removal - of the married couple’s allowance for couples aged under age 65.

    * The gradual reduction - and now complete removal of mortgage interest tax relief at source (MIRAS).

    * The removal of the age-related married couple’s allowance, where neither of the married couple were aged at least 65 on 5 April 2000.

    * The removal of the ability of pension funds to recover the tax credit on UK dividend income – which works like compound interest in reverse - meaning that pension contributions will need to be increased to provide the same level of benefits.

    * The inability for non-taxpayers to recover the 10 per cent tax credit on UK share dividends.

    * The reduction in the level of tax-free savings that can be made each year. Under PEPs/TESSA it was £12,000,(£9,000 for PEPs and £3,000 for the first year of a TESSA). Under the ISA it is £7,000.

    * The failure of the higher-rate tax threshold to increase at the same rate as earnings. Since 1988, this threshold has increased by just 52 per cent to £29,400 while average earnings have increased by 84 per cent. Since 1997, approximately 200,000 more people have to pay tax at the top rate.

    * The failure of the nil-rate inheritance tax band to increase by the rate of inflation. This means more inheritance tax will become payable - especially on the death of property owners.

    * The inability for PEPs and ISAs to recover the tax credit on UK dividends after 5 April 2004.
     
  2. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    This was exactly the type of info I was looking for. But, as you say, the averages could be misleading, as a significant chunk is paid for by the businesses and the wealthiest of individuals.

    Even if you want to take my company as an example, they pay half of the total cost of the insurance, while the other half comes out of my pocket. So really, the cost of my health insurance is over $360 every two weeks for my family - I'm just paying half of it. When you look at the total cost (adding in what my employer pays) it comes very close to the cost you give.

    Well that's partly true. For example, if you have some type of illness and don't have health care insurance, you typically can't get insurance. Any "pre-existing condition" as the industry terms it, can disqualify you from getting coverage. In fact, if you have a condition, and don't disclose it at the time you are applying for coverage, you can be initially approved, and then later be denied the coverage. So the issue is if you are already sick, no, you won't be insured. As a result, it is fair to say that in the US we only insure healthier individuals.

    I'm surprised that many people say doctors are not well compensated in other countries. In the U.S., a doctor is one of the highest paying jobs out there. Even regular doctors (like GPs) earn well over $100K per year, and specialists can earn several times that amount.
     
  3. Carcaroth

    Carcaroth I call on the priests, saints and dancin' girls ★ SPS Account Holder

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,655
    Likes Received:
    5
    I can try and add to to the UK with a few (admittedly major) assupmtions:

    Government expenditure in 2005, was 45.5% of GDP. THis was higher than revenue, but lets assume that as tax-payers we end up paying for it at some point in time.
    Assuming health-care spending in 2005 was 9% (Split the difference between 2004 and 2006) this equates to about 20% of expenditure.

    Now, if we assume that the majority of government revenue is from Tax (there are probably other sources but I don't know how much they would make-up) then we can say that 20% of my taxes go towards the NHS.

    If I roughly work out how much tax is going back in terms of Income Tax, National Insurance, Council Tax, VAT on purchase - inc grocery (17.5%), VAT on fuel (70%!) etc, by my reckoning I am funding the NHS to the tune of £4000 per year which currently works out as $8000 (But historically more like $6000).
     
  4. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    Yikes! That's way more than I pay! $185 x 26 payments years comes out to $4,810 - but that's for three people!
     
  5. Drew

    Drew Arrogant, contemptible, and obnoxious Adored Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,605
    Media:
    6
    Likes Received:
    190
    Gender:
    Male
    Uh...no it wasn't. Healthcare expenditure for 2005-2006 only accounted for 8.3 percent of the UK GDP.

    Link.
     
  6. Montresor

    Montresor Mostly Harmless Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,103
    Media:
    127
    Likes Received:
    183
    Gender:
    Male
    Carcaroth said that government expenditure was 45.5% of the GDP, and further estimated that Healthcare was about 9%. So his figures weren't that far off. :)
     
  7. Drew

    Drew Arrogant, contemptible, and obnoxious Adored Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,605
    Media:
    6
    Likes Received:
    190
    Gender:
    Male
    Read the link again. Total health care expenditure was 8.3% if the GDP. Further, health care only comprised 17% of the 2005 budget. Even if what he meant to refer to was the percentage of total government spending going towards health care instead of the percentage of the GDP, he's still wrong.
     
  8. Montresor

    Montresor Mostly Harmless Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,103
    Media:
    127
    Likes Received:
    183
    Gender:
    Male
    Drew, he said that government expenditure was 45.5% of GDP, with healthcare being 9% of GDP. Your link says healthcare is 8.3% of GDP. Yes, his numbers are off but not as bad as you try to make them look.
     
  9. Drew

    Drew Arrogant, contemptible, and obnoxious Adored Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,605
    Media:
    6
    Likes Received:
    190
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah. I re-visited the original post and apparently misinterpreted it. Oops.:( I initially thought he was trying to draw a parallel between government and out of pocket health care spending.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2008
  10. Carcaroth

    Carcaroth I call on the priests, saints and dancin' girls ★ SPS Account Holder

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,655
    Likes Received:
    5
    @ Drew,

    No probs, I have a tendancy to skim-read as well. I estimated 20% of my Tax, so @ 17%, my figures come down to about £3400, or $6800 at current exchange/ $5100 roughly historical exchange.

    @ Aldeth.

    Yes, but you haven't factored in that your tax goes to pay for Government-funded programs, which according to Wiki is used by about 27% of the American population and actually funds 45% of health care insurance. Presumably that is also your tax money paying for other people, same as mine does.

    (I think I mentioned this in a previous thread - although the Americans claim they don't have a National Health Service, almost 50% of insurance costs, and I assume therfore expenditure are funded by Government, presumably through taxation.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

    With an estimated 15% of GDP spent on health care in the US, this translates as about 6.75% of GDP is spent by the Government on health care programs.

    Actually, this will probably alter my figures, as I don't know the percentage of health-care spening in the UK through insurance and private health.
     
  11. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    If that is true, then I have to question why insurance is so expensive, and further then why insurance comapanies are so quick to drop you. Also, are you sure the 27% of Americans who are using these government funded programs aren't people on Medicare and Medicaid? I admit that I just skimmed your link and will look at it in more detail shortly. All I'm saying is that I have never, to my knowledge, got an insurance break from the government. You'd think that if part of your health insurance was being paid for by the government that politicians would be talking about this... especially those politicians who are against universal health care, as they could say, "See - we're already partially funding it anyway."
     
  12. Drew

    Drew Arrogant, contemptible, and obnoxious Adored Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,605
    Media:
    6
    Likes Received:
    190
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm quite sure that they are, but I don't think this weakens his point. People on Medicare are far and away the most expensive people to cover. By comparison, expanding title 19 to cover everyone else (moving over to a single payer system) would be a drop in the bucket.
     
Sorcerer's Place is a project run entirely by fans and for fans. Maintaining Sorcerer's Place and a stable environment for all our hosted sites requires a substantial amount of our time and funds on a regular basis, so please consider supporting us to keep the site up & running smoothly. Thank you!

Sorcerers.net is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to products on amazon.com, amazon.ca and amazon.co.uk. Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.