Donald I, emperor of the world.

[monkers]

So I looked at an NI calculator, and $7500 is about £5600. You pay that much employee NI on a salary of about £180k. Well done Stevo.

If you are thinking of total contributions, you get to that level at a salary of more like £40k, (the total for £180k being more like £20k.)

I suppose the question is whether that's causing wage suppression, and if so by how much. Hard to know really, without comparing what you get for your £5600 in the US, so you know how much the equivalent to NHS cover would cost. The cost for comparison is also going to be wildly different if you have dependents, because for two kids your bill is more like £15k in the US isn't it.

Your notional £180k earner (let's call them Stevo or Stevette) is probably going to end up subsidizing others. So is that the sort of society you want to live in, or do you prefer the eat what you kill society in the US?

Just to say that NI does not fund the NHS if that is what is being discussed. General taxation pays the bulk. A top up may come via NI, a small portion is raised by the NHS itself - prescriptions and the like. Copilot assists ...

• 🏛️ General Taxation: Around 80–85% of NHS England’s funding
• 💼 National Insurance Contributions (NICs): Roughly 13–18%
• 💊 Patient Charges & Other Income: Less than 2%

 

[icowden]

As above, it was not meant to be a wider discussion on the merits or demerits of US healthcare. However if I look at my total tax bill and apply the % of national expenditure om the NHS to that number, it would very likely buy more than enough cover in the US.

Would it though? The cost of the NHS is about £3300 per person per year. The average cost of health insurance in the USA is $8951 (£6664.90) - that's double what you "pay" for the NHS.

Then you have your out of pocket costs or co-pays. That's around $1,142 per year or £850. So that's £7154 per year.

On top of that you have the added stress that your insurance company doesn't have to pay out. If your treatment is not honoured by the insurance company, you have to pay yourself.

If you are planning to move to the US I hope you are in really very good health and not planning to get old. The average denial costs $14,000+. Good news though - 50% of all denials get overturned. So you could end up paying an extra $14k or more, or you might not. Just flip a coin.

To me, it makes £3300 look very, very reasonable.

 

[First Aspect]

Just to say that NI does not fund the NHS if that is what is being discussed. General taxation pays the bulk. A top up may come via NI, a small portion is raised by the NHS itself - prescriptions and the like. Copilot assists ...

• 🏛️ General Taxation: Around 80–85% of NHS England’s funding
• 💼 National Insurance Contributions (NICs): Roughly 13–18%
• 💊 Patient Charges & Other Income: Less than 2%

Okay, well,.in that case the numbers are off somewhere, because the US spends more on healthcare per capita than we do and has worse outcomes. $7500 per head doesn't come close.

 

[First Aspect]

Would it though? The cost of the NHS is about £3300 per person per year. The average cost of health insurance in the USA is $8951 (£6664.90) - that's double what you "pay" for the NHS.

Then you have your out of pocket costs or co-pays. That's around $1,142 per year or £850. So that's £7154 per year.

On top of that you have the added stress that your insurance company doesn't have to pay out. If your treatment is not honoured by the insurance company, you have to pay yourself.

If you are planning to move to the US I hope you are in really very good health and not planning to get old. The average denial costs $14,000+. Good news though - 50% of all denials get overturned. So you could end up paying an extra $14k or more, or you might not. Just flip a coin.

To me, it makes £3300 look very, very reasonable.

I'm lost in numbers. The median earner in the UK, roughly £28-£30k, roughly accounts for the average cost of the NHS per capita. And the NHS gets about 5 times as much from general taxation from that average earner (extremely roughly). Are there really 5 non earners for every earner in the UK?

 

[monkers]

Okay, well,.in that case the numbers are off somewhere, because the US spends more on healthcare per capita than we do and has worse outcomes. $7500 per head doesn't come close.

That is because the numbers will always fail to spot the very thing we know - that tax in the UK is raised under the ethos of acceptance of collective responsibility under an essentially socialist structure. Those who don't wish to contribute tend to cite numbers that reflect transactional analysis - they don't accept the premise that we are all responsible for the elderly, those who can't work, those temporarily out of work, and children. All they see are their spreadsheets of income and expenditure with other people on and become bitter about it. The 'not my kids' is a principle argument, soon forgotten by the expectation of a state pension while conveniently forgetting that it is funded by other people's children once they in turn are working.

 

[C R]

That is because the numbers will always fail to spot the very thing we know - that tax in the UK is raised under the ethos of acceptance of collective responsibility under an essentially socialist structure. Those who don't wish to contribute tend to cite numbers that reflect transactional analysis - they don't accept the premise that we are all responsible for the elderly, those who can't work, those temporarily out of work, and children. All they see are their spreadsheets of income and expenditure with other people on and become bitter about it. The 'not my kids' is a principle argument, soon forgotten by the expectation of a state pension while conveniently forgetting that it is funded by other people's children once they in turn are working.

I.E. the politics of envy. They envy the support given to those less fortunate than themselves.

 

[First Aspect]

That is because the numbers will always fail to spot the very thing we know - that tax in the UK is raised under the ethos of acceptance of collective responsibility under an essentially socialist structure. Those who don't wish to contribute tend to cite numbers that reflect transactional analysis - they don't accept the premise that we are all responsible for the elderly, those who can't work, those temporarily out of work, and children. All they see are their spreadsheets of income and expenditure with other people on and become bitter about it. The 'not my kids' is a principle argument, soon forgotten by the expectation of a state pension while conveniently forgetting that it is funded by other people's children once they in turn are working.

Yes I get all that, but there are more than three people working for every reitree, and fewer than one child. I think. So the numbers don't add up.

 

[icowden]

I'm lost in numbers. The median earner in the UK, roughly £28-£30k, roughly accounts for the average cost of the NHS per capita. And the NHS gets about 5 times as much from general taxation from that average earner (extremely roughly). Are there really 5 non earners for every earner in the UK?

No it's more like 1 in 3 if you include children etc. 43.7 million tax payers in the UK, and 66 million population. You need to be on 40k before you are paying enough tax to finance one person's healthcare. Remember though that tax isn't just income tax. Income Tax and NI account for 57% of all revenue. So £1881 needs to come from income tax and NI, so anyone earning more than £19k per annum pays for their own healthcare cost.

This makes Stevo's assertion even more ludicrous.

 

[monkers]

Yes I get all that, but there are more than three people working for every reitree, and fewer than one child. I think. So the numbers don't add up.

In the US, insurance is paid by individuals or family membership and the numbers therein - payments are calculated on that basis, I think - is that right?

That's all irrelevant to the UK - the number of people per household, number of tax payers per household, how much they contribute, is not fundamental.

 

[monkers]

I.E. the politics of envy. They envy the support given to those less fortunate than themselves.

Selective memory engages when in turn they become recipients.

 

[C R]

Selective memory engages when in turn they become recipients.

No, they are always worthy recipients, it is everyone else thar are scroungers.

 

[orraloon]

I thought this thread was about the orange shitgibbon.

Has he been detained by UK border control and sent to Ailsa Craig yet?

 

[C R]

I thought this thread was about the orange shitgibbon.

Has he been detained by UK border control and sent to Ailsa Craig yet?

Wouldn't that be loverly?

 

[briantrumpet]

I thought this thread was about the orange shitgibbon.

Has he been detained by UK border control and sent to Ailsa Craig yet?

It is.

There's a separate thread for general healthcare discussion, which might well include US die-if-you're-poor observations. https://ncap.cyclechat.net/threads/healthcare-models.757/

 

[First Aspect]

I thought this thread was about the orange shitgibbon.

Has he been detained by UK border control and sent to Ailsa Craig yet?

I actually thought we were on that thread tbh. As it happens I'm bored now.

If the shitgibbon goes to Ailsa Craig it's to retrieve a ball he shanked of the tee. But that's not going to happen, because one of his personal guards has a supply of balls to ensure every drive landed on the fairway. They do a similar thing by putting loads of flags on each green so he ends up close to one of them.