| > Sure, the NHS does provide excellent care, but it's not free. The fact that the British won't come to terms with this is causing its collapse. In the words of Luke Skywalker: Amazing. Everything you said in that sentence is false. But focusing on the "it's not free" part; perhaps a distinction should be made in terms of "background passive costs paid regularly (e.g. taxes)" vs "additional costs once you're ill". What is "not" free in the NHS is the first, but the latter is generally free. This distinction becomes very meaningful when you realise that, in the US, things like the £145k quoted in the article fall in the latter category, while still paying for the former (in terms of regular insurance or whatnot). This "dishonest" comparison made when the "NHS is not free" argument is thrown to justify why in the US things cost money, is to ignore the fact that you are also paying the background stuff in the US too, even in the absence of illness, but this is rarely counted in these discussions. I would love it if someone armed with more numbers than I could give a breakdown of what it costs annually a person to passively contribute to the NHS through taxes vs an average US medical insurance scheme (assuming the US does not have other healthcare related taxes which I do not know about). |
The U.S. government pays about the same amount per capita (1.2 trillion for ~400 million people or $3000/person) on healthcare as the UK gov. That’s before private insurance costs. Some of this is on things like Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA, which are nationalized health systems for specific portions of the population, but the point still stands that we’re not avoiding taxes going the private route.