People all over the world complain about their systems. Stats can be given to support or disprove which systems work best and which fail. Health care costs are rising for everyone everywhere and all people in all countries pay for their health care thru either taxes on income and goods(gas is the UK cost close to $9 per gallon, this is for healthcare) or with premiums and deductibles. My family pays less than 10% of our income to cover our family of three and we are a one income family and we all have preexisting conditions. If we select a high premium with a low deductible,ie copays, it is the same amount if we have a medical emergency and much less if we do not, per year.
Here are some opinions and charts that say how some see health costs increasing thruout the developed world and exactly how much each citizen is paying for their health care. Just like any stat it has some truth and some myth.

This chart shows how costs have risen for all countries, it is from the June Economist.

Fact: Government-controlled health care is not free � it comes at a great cost through higher taxes, wait times and denials of coverage.

United States: In the U.S., a family of four with an employer-based PPO will have around $15,609 total this year in health care costs. Of this amount, $9,442 will be paid by the employer and the employee will contribute $3,492 in premiums and $2,675 on co-payments, equivalent to about 6 percent of average family income. 1

Canada: In Canada, while the percentage of taxes used to provide health care varies, it is estimated that 22 percent of taxes collected went to the health system in 2004. Several provinces, including Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia, also charge additional premiums. 2 Canadians also may spend money to receive private treatment for procedures or drugs that are not covered by the government system.

United Kingdom: Citizens of the U.K. pay 11 percent of each pound they make in weekly income (�100 - �670) for the NHS, plus an additional 1 percent for income over �670 a week. 3 Copayments for drugs are low, but many drugs are not covered, often because they are not considered cost efficient. In addition, anyone who uses their own money to buy powerful but expensive drugs not paid for by the NHS finds him or herself shut out of the system. According to BBC News, the NHS has imposed a policy that denies treatments to patients if they exceed �30,000 a year.

Germany: In Germany, coverage from a public sickness fund ranges significantly in cost, from around 12.2 to 16.7 percent of income, with the employee paying a bit under half. This year, premiums are to be standardized from the federal level and health care experts anticipate that they will be set to around 15.5 percent. 4

France: According to the OECD, the French pay 20 percent more in taxes than Americans. In France, employees contribute only to 0.75 percent of their salaries towards medical care, but also pay a 7.5 percent General Social Contribution, the majority of which is earmarked for the health system. This base coverage reimburses people for the majority of costs for doctor visits and for a portion of the costs of medications. On top of the government coverage, almost all French residents have supplementary coverage from a "mutuelle", costing approximately 2.5 percent of salary.5

Netherlands: It is too early to reach firm conclusions on the cost of the Dutch health care system since it has been in place only two and a half years. In 2006, it cost approximately $2,590 for a family of four (children are free) to obtain mandatory coverage. However, 90 percent of Dutch people buy supplementary coverage from private insurers. Costs have increased since 2006 and may have been artificially low. Only time will show what the new system really costs.

Switzerland: Switzerland is one of the world�s most expensive systems and cost is a common complaint. The Swiss pay an average of $680 per month or around
ome disputable facts within it."

Here is a link that might be useful: conservative views on how much worse US healthcare is compared to rest of the world

There are a number of things that have well outpaced education as well as medical costs, and I think medical costs have a lot to do with Administration, Insurance administration within the healthcare facility itself, and Malpractice.

But what about Automobiles? What about College Tuition and Room and Board?

The tuition for the post graduate program I attended has more than Tripled since 1985.

As an automotive example. My aunt owned a classic 1961 Lincoln Continental (secondhand) and since I love cars I looked up all sorts of information on this car, and one of the things I found was a print ad that said

"If you are going to spend $5000 for a car..."

$5000 for a car in 1961 was a LOT of money, but let's analyze this...the typical Lincoln buyer in 1961 was NOT making $10,000 a year, they were probably making at least $30,000: so the car was 1/6 th the value of their total income. And, you could buy a decent car for a bit over $1000.

LOTS of people are now buying cars that are half their income or more because that is what is available.

Lots of people are buying cars that are half their income when they could buy a lesser car used and keep it til it dies rather than looking for status quo cars that they can not afford. A used kia is not half of even the lowest national income, a new lexus SUV is. It is again an example of wrong choices and than people complaining about cost of necessities. I know people who are uninsured but who are decorating a home that cost more than mine. I have a cell phone that only has 500min, no web and no unlimited texting because I would rather put the 100quid each month into my stay at home mom's pension, ie an IRA. Everything is a personal choice and some who shun personal responsibility have made selfish choices, IMO.

My english MIL would willingly change places with any US citizen and pay for the choice of better care. Her mamagram was not covered under her national system til after age 50, nor are colonoscopies even after 50, nor are annual paps for any age by the way, which is probally to late to help her much. Cancer survival rates in the uk are low due to lack of covered preventative care.

Roarah, did you get the text on the status of health care in various countries from the Economist or just the chart? I love the Economist and have been a reader for many, many years, but the statement about healthcare in the Netherlands being only 2-ish years old simply isn't correct.

I am married to a Dutch-national and his whole family is in Holland and I've been visiting there for almost 30 years and they've had a national health care system for as long as I can remember. Gosh, I've gotten sick and visited docs there many times. Once, my fees for a raging UTI w/all meds were something like 6 euros! No one asked for ID cards or any proof of insurance either. When our daughter broke her hand playing in her great Aunt's attic we took her to a local ER for treatment and her total cost, with x-rays, bone-setting, pain meds, and a cast were just a bit under $200 bucks! They offered to process it through our insurance but I told them not to bother, there was no way my co-pay was going to be any cheaper than their total bill and it wasn't worth the hassle.

No offense, I don't know where you got these facts, but this particular one doesn't sound right. Also, I question that figure about the number of people buying private health insurance in addition to their national insurance. I did a quick and admittedly scientific poll of my in-laws and they say that's not their experience at all.

Yes, they are taxed higher but all the big things that we Americans can't afford or don't want to pay for as a country (college tuition, health care are what I'm thinking) are provided for and in my opinion, the people are much better off for it.

Judithn, no, the chart is from the Economist the other is taken from an organization that is pro small gov and yes is bias. The link at the botom should bring you to the full article with their footnotes to "support" their claims. I do not believe them to be fully true just like I do not believe Mike Moore to be truthfull, I only linked the article to show that some stats can be used to prove that our form of health care is on par with the cost that other nations' citizens are paying.
On the note of college tuition, I do not know about the dutch, but in England, less and less is being covered now in regards to university costs. Room and board have always been the responsibily of the student and now that there is very little gov. revenue many tuition benefits maybe soon be cut too. Hardships prevail everywhere it seems.

Judith, is it true that in the Netherlands the top income tax bracket is 52% with an added value tax( on food, services and goods) being 6% and 19%. I think we pay about the same for school and health care if this is true....

The median income in my location is $36K per household, for my state, $50K. It's awfully hard to get a decent car for $6,000-8300. A Honda Civic starts at $14K, an Accord, 18K

These are pretty basic everyman cars, a bit pricey in their category.

My point was not really about poor choices here, it was really about other things (automobiles and education) that have fast outpaced inflation in addition to healthcare.

In two smallish offices I work in, there is a person to handle insurance, full time--and in the one office we only accept insurance, we do not participate, so the administration of it is relatively streamlined. This is on the private sector end. On the insurance end I guarantee you (although I could be Completely Off Base, I doubt it) there is probably at least one person for each in the private sector--and at least part of their responsibility is to Obfuscate your efforts, not facilitate them, the keep the money in the insurance company. That is a Big contributor to costs.

I heard recently that one of the reasons that a college education has gone up so much recently is because the of the easy access to credit. Colleges and universities knew that students and parents could easily get student loans/second mortages, etc. to pay the tab.

I am not sure what I am missing but college has always been expensive. In 1987, when i graduated HS, the average nominal income was $24,594 and average tuition at a private university was $12,800. in 2009 the average nominal income was $48,753 and private school tuition averaged $25,143. Isn't that almost the same % percent of income to pay for college?

roarah, thanks for clarifying. I'm not really into fact-checking all the numbers but I would be dubious of that 52% figure for Dutch taxes.

As for college fees for English colleges, I don't think you can really compare them to what we commonly see for US college tuitions. An English friend was up in arms over having to pay about $1000 for her whole year's tuition, a far cry from the $30k my daughter's paying. Per year. As an IN-STATE student at our state school.

If we paid higher taxes, would our kids' tuition go down? Doubt it. Additional revenues would probably be used to continue our policies of corporate welfare, unfair subsidies to industries like agriculture and energy, and regressive taxation on the middle class. Basically, what we pay for education and health insurance are like user fees a.k.a taxes.

A lincoln is a luxury car and I do believe that people who buy the average luxury car spend less of a proportion of their income on cars than the average person.

According to a quick web search, in 1961 the average income was $5315 per year. A new car cost $2275. That's about 43% of the average income. According to a quick web search in 2011, average income is about $27k. That's about $11,550 for a new car... although it will not be a luxurious new car, you CAN get an economy car for that price. I don't think as a proportion the cost of new cars has gone up at all, and certainly not the double digits increases we've seen over the last decade in health care costs.

Some other things that lead to increased healthcare costs in the U.S. include government regulations and requirements such as Medicare coding and billing requirements that change quarterly (private insurance often follows Medicare practices), FDA drug information requirements that change frequently often without notice, HIPAA and HITECH requirements, ARRA stimulus EMR meaningful use requirements, conversion to ICD-10 requirement (oh it was a requirement that healthcare facilities spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on but now it's on hold again), etc.

A LOT of healthcare spending goes to the above admnistrative costs and not to providing actual patient care. And from what I've observed the more the government tries to fix healthcare, the more money is spent on the above. Eventually people just don't want to deal with this kind of stuff and they get out of the healthcare industry and/or never go into it. Then we have an availability and access problem along with a cost problem - probably right about the time all of the aging baby boomers are in dire need of care.

I think it is amenities that have driven up prices on college campuses. Many dorms are now suites with roommates sharing a living space. We had 2-3 in one room freshman year. We had one cafeteria with 19 meals a week. Universities now have flex plans and food courts. Potential students want to see the workout facilities, they want to know if there is a 24 hour convenience store adjacent to their living facility, they want parking.

The Average New Car Price for 2011 was $29,600. which is now higher than the Average income, not 1/2 the Average income is it was in 1961, it depends upon what statistics you are looking at. All I am saying is it has far outstripped inflation as have healthcare costs. I am sure you could have bought the equivalent to some $10K deathtrap for a lot less than $2300 back then, too.

I am not arguing at all that medical care cost have exploded, but so have some other living expenses.

...and record profits for health insurance companies for the third year in a row in 2011.

Does anyone even believe that it can be fixed anymore?

Most people these days lease their cars which is why a lot of new cars are on the road and people with medium incomes can afford to have bigger and better. It's one of the reasons why the Auto industry had to bring back a lease option after being bailed out. Very few buyers had the means to buy new.

KGWLisa said: "The high cost is infuriating to be honest, because I remember what it was and as far as I can tell, in the last 10 years the malpractice situation has not changed significantly, doctors and nurses have not received double digit raises every year... so where the hell are double digit increases EVERY YEAR going?"

LOBBYING

OK my husband works for Carrier, part of utc they make air conditions....they too had record profits with far higher margins than insurance companies as a whole, it is the nature of business and a sign that the economy is improving.

Also where in the world are the under 30,000 medium income figures from? According to the US census the medium US income for 2010 was 49,000 it had droped a thousand from the year before but it is still quite a bit better than 27,000. Here is a chart up to 2010 that shows nominal and inflation adjusted income til 2010.
http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

Here is a link that might be useful: us census data on real medium income

No, Judithn. That's why I said above that as long as the congress & Senate are partisan it will never happen.

Obama's first two years the Democrats were in control. But it takes longer than 2 years to come up with an ideal plan. At the 2 year mark, the Republicans took control and there goes a health plan of any substance.

Then you have people with excellent health care. They're going to be loud against changing it, and who can blame them? I certainly can't.

Pal, I don't get the comparison of buying a car, even a Lincoln, to raising deductibles on insurance. They give loans for cars, they're paid off within 5 years, most people keep said car. Cars are necessities to go to work.

College educations are necessities. Both trump higher deductibles because people need both in order to even get insurance.

Now if someone buys a large and expensive home and can't afford healthcare, then I'd question it.

I don't think that there was any such thing as an economy car before the oil crisis of the 70s, but I'm not 100% sure about that. I think it is also difficult to go back before the 70's or 80's and make any kind of a meaningful comparison because it was just a completely different world. If the average new car price is that high, it must include luxury cars... or people are buying way more car than they can afford and skewing the average. You can buy every single model of subaru save the top of the line for less than the "average" even if you walk in there and pay full MSRP and those cars are some of the safest on the road. I don't know, it's totally anecdotal but the people I know who drive cars that cost in the $30k range make 6 figure salaries or more. I don't know anyone making $26k a year who is buying a car for more than their average salary. I took a serious hit in income and had to do something about my 10 year old accord with well over 100k miles on it that was burning oil at an alarming rate and for under $10k (including all new tires and brakes and a bunch of other work done to it) I got myself a 2004 subaru legacy wagon with 21k miles on it... that car has another 200k in it easily and is far from a death trap.

I guess the point is that there are choices and options in the car world. You don't ONLY have to buy a lincoln if you need a car... but in the health care world, there is no choice other choice... everyone seems to pay lincoln prices in order to drive an econobox and the cost goes up 15-20% every year while features are stripped out. The system is broken.

Car prices have nowhere near gone up as fast as healthcare costs have in the last decade. In fact, I paid a bit over $18k for the aforementioned 2001 honda accord (yes I remember what I paid for it!) I paid $50 over invoice at the time. $50 over invoice for the equivalent model (it was a 5 speed EX model) is now $22,038, so say a $4k difference. That's basically 2% increase per year compounding on average between 2001 and 2012. My health insurance has gone from $400 a month to about $2400 a month for the same thing in the same amount of time (we have downgraded and added a kid, but that is the price that it would have been to maintain the same plan for just two people). That is a hair shy of a *20*% increase every year, compounding, since 2001... and salaries have been stagnant or dropping since 2009.

The system is way out of whack and the car argument holds little to no water IMO.

sorry I just read that I called it medium I meant median...pesty tired five year old and a menage a trois and look at the typos! oh that sounds really bad the menage a trois is a wine:)

Roarah some of us are quoting per capita income and some are quoting median household income. The reason why the median household income is so much lower in my county is because 25% of households are below the poverty line for the county.

My health insurance in 2001 was close to $800 a month and if I were self paying, albeit through a group, now it would be almost $1200, I think.

I guess the question is whether health insurance companies should be making record profits on something like health care.... air conditioning is for the most part a luxury item (maybe less so if you are 90 and in florida but... for the most part the two things are apples to oranges). Also I think for things like air conditioning, the market DOES somewhat control prices... but if every health insurance company is raising their prices 15-20% a year on a necessity, what in the market is putting a check on that? The Department of Justice sure shut down the AT&T purchase of T-mobile real quick because it would reduce competition too much (I was not in favor of that either) but no one seems to care that insurance companies are pretty much doing whatever they hell they want with no checks on them whatsoever.

No I don't believe it can be fixed. I think it needs to be completely gutted and rebuilt from the ground up.

You know, I do not have a problem with people making money. I snooze when I hear about the outrage over a CEO of a nonprofit making $100k a year... I understand that you need to properly compensate the people who are capable of doing that job and in the private sector that salary would be nothing. I don't even have a problem with the CEO of a company making $30M a year... assuming that they are not being given major tax breaks and subsidies that the middle class is paying for... assuming that they are not providing something that is a necessity with zero mechanism for the market to put a check on price increases... assuming they are not making that money with illegal and immoral business practices.

I say, record profits Carrier? Go for it! Make a good product, sell it like crazy and make money. If it's a sign that the economy is slowly coming around, bully for it. But if anything the high cost of health insurance is dragging the economy down... people are now paying more than a mortgage payment for something that used to cost less than a car payment a decade ago. Imagine how much better everyone would be if every family had another $1500 a month at their disposal.

The rate increases are a result of the new laws... which this year will begin to touch upon the insurance companies profits. More insurance companies will be targeting upper middle class people to select a higher deductible plan...A friend who works within the business said it is these people, with the high deductibles, who take better care of themselves and also always get what is covered ie the annual tests that are called for at their age and their yearly wellness visits and thus have less costly problems like advanced cancer and weight related problems. They are as a whole usually better educated and take better precautions and thus cost the insurance companies far less over a life time than the copay high deductible groups.

My original question was why can't I have the option of taking a high deductible and saving the difference, rather than having a small deductible and never even using That.

I would Have the money for a $5000 deductible if I needed it, provided I could pay a few hundred less in insurance every month. The problem is that for most people, that would be another few hundred thrown down the rat hole with nothing to show for it at the end of the year. Someone felt I was questioning someone's right to spend money on manicures or whatever and still complain about having to pay more insurance. Well I am questioning their right to force me to pay more for my insurance (since I am part of the Group that is offered) and take a low deductible because THEY wouldn't have the money to pay for theirs, even if it was given to them in monthly insurance savings. Because they wouldn't save it

Is a high-deductible plan even an option for you? You might want to see if it is. We have a choice of PPO, HMO, and high-deductible.

well I thought most companies offered a few choices. Like I said earlier, we did the math and it saves us on healthy years and we break even on the unhealthy years or pregnancy years. Your employer does not offer you different options and companies to consider?

Many people even when given the choice pick higher premiums rather than the deductible and why I do not understand...

Fortunately, as of December of last year health insurance companies will be required to spend no less than 80% of premium dollars (85% for large group insurers) on actual patient care. Not overheard, not profit, not advertising, but actual care.

Here is a link that might be useful: Forbes

That is... extraordinary. I'm reading the article and trying to digest the comments as well... nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

>> Then you have people with excellent health care. They're going to be loud against changing it, and who can blame them? I certainly can't. What gave you the idea that people who already have excellent health care plans have to give them up? Or change them?

The PPACA (Patient Care Protection and Affordable Care Act) does have a mandate that everyone must have health insurance. It does not require that everyone uses the government plan. If you already have, say, for instance, employer sponsored HC, you keep that care. Whatever you already have you can keep. Private insurance, too.

I'm from Massachusetts.. we started this universal health care business. It's a good thing. A very, very good thing.

My DH already had employer sponsored HC, so he was required to check off a box on his income tax (State) stating he did and with who. As long as he was covered he was not penalized.

Take the next person, say my DH's coworker, who opts out of his employer sponsored HC plan/s. And does not have private insurance. He will be penalized at tax time and the penalties will increase every year that he chooses not to have a HC plan. If there was no mandate only the very sick and poor would be in the pool. Those employers who offer HC plans get credits... they get penalized if they don't offer it. There are exemptions for small business.. certain number of employees, etc. I don't see anyone crying over state required car insurance.. don't you think people are at least as important as those expensive cars we must have?

BTW, the Universal Care does NOT have lesser services offered, longer waits, restrictions on Dr.'s/Specialists. Just like the HCP you are all familiar with, you need only prior approval/referral from your primary care Doc. And just like Employer Sponsored HC plans, there are the same type of copayments due at Dr.'s appointments, for prescription drugs, etc., But, there is also a cap on what you are required to pay out of pocket, per year. There are many, many protections for patients put in place. This UC health care plan puts the emphasis on the patient and his/her care.
Not on the insurance company's.
Also, just like in private plans, there is a yearly renewal process. You look over the plans offered and choose one based upon your needs and wants.

There are subsidies based on income. My DH was forced to take early retirement (well, earlier than we would have liked) due to the bad economy...he is now on a fixed income (a pension) so his care is subsidized based on his income. I haven't looked at it this year but for a single person the top income limit was (is?) 32,000 something. He just squeaked in there. So, his premium costs 169.00 per month. Yes, you read that right. That is not a typo. 169 smackers! I say DH but the H is for Honey, not Hubby. We will change that this year after 34 years together and it is partly due to the Health Insurance issue. Anyway, if we were legal that income cap would rise to maybe 42,000 - 44,000 per couple? I'm too lazy to look it up. Of course, the montly premium would also go up, but accordingly.
Also, if he/we were over the income cap limit he would still save by purchasing his HC insurance through Commonwealth Care. The insurers are not allowed to charge nearly as much as they would like. I know this is true because we had to price this out when signing up. When this was first announced the insurance co's all loudy threatened to leave the state would refuse to participate. HA! They quickly realized they would frozen out.. they couldn't line up fast enough to then get in!

Anyone can look at the plans offered and the cost by going to Commonwealth Care (google it, laziness again). Is this a perfect plan? No. Does it need tweaking? Yes. And it does get tweaked.

But, I will tell you, it does offer us peace of mind.

And we are very thankful that we live in a state who cares about the health of its citizens. And, no, I don't have Mitt Romney to thank for that. Despite what he often (used to) say. That was when he thought that Universal HC was an inevitability and he wanted to look forward thinking. He ran for Massachusetts Governor with the sole aim of using that as a launch pad to get him to the White House. Now that the morons running for Pres are screaming bloody blue murder over PPACA, he says he was not for it!! Well, not really, anyway. Sort of. :) Btw, he had no objections to the requirements that religion based BUSINESS must offer birth control. (Key word business, not churches) That was then. This is now. And, that, my friends tells the story of Mittens.

I never thought it was possible but the current pack of idiots running only serve to make MR look so normal. He may be a flip flopper, extraordinaire, but he isn't a nut job. A cad, yes. An out of touch 1%'er who cares very liitle for the least fortunate among us. And not much more for the ever shrinking middle class, either.

Did Massachusetts fall off the face of the earth when he was Governor? No, in fact I think he was sort of low key (compared to what we had braced ourselves against). He really wasn't interested in Massachusetts.. it was Washington that was on his mind the whole time. What he did do was keep is (republican pledge) no new taxes word. 'Course, what he really did was work around that pledge (The 1% always finds a loophole ;) by raising every fee there was and adding a gazillion more. All those "fees" really hit the middle classes and poor very hard. Plus, we had a Democrat controlled Legislator to keep him in check. And, no, I wouldn't want to see him as the next Commander in Chief. Nor any one of the other nutjobs. I find the possibility scary, very scary.

It is my wish to see 2014 with a Democrat as President when all of the PPACA is set to take effect. It levels the playing field. It gives citizens the same access and level of care that the politicians feel entitled to. I don't see how that could ever be viewed as a bad thing.
There is a very good blog/column at the Boston Globe called Health Stew... it has loads of accurate information on the PPACA. It's a good read. The Boston Globe requires a subscription, paid, but this (and some other features of the paper, too) are open to all readers. I highly recommend this blog/column.

I'm proud to be from "liberal' Massachusetts. We do care about people. We also think ALL citizens are deserving of the same rights and privileges. That includes LGBT citizens. Our Constitution is even stronger that the federal one.

Sorry I got off subject a bit.

Sea

Sea,

Thank you for speaking out on this subject. I think insurance companies will continue to rip us off until we have other public options that pay out the money for care instead of lobbying and high profits. Medical Insurance companies are the only entity that can gather together to collectively decide what to charge. Additionally, when insurance companies are not allowed to cross state lines, that also contributes the lack of competition.

The 13th ammendment. unless of course you believe that all heath care personel belong to the state

Magglepuss,

Does Medicare violate the 13th amendment and if so, do you think we should eliminate Medicare?

It confuses me when the same people fighting "Obamacare" fight like H E double L to get the government to leave Medicare alone. I just don't understand the difference between Social Security/Medicare and a public option.

Medical and Medicare recipients have better benefits than I do. For $1400, per month (plus high co-pays), I'm limited to generic drugs. I just heard that my Insurance premium will be going up another 14%.

Filing bankrupt because of high medical bills doesn't seem like a responsible option for our family, yet I understand it is the number one reason people file for it. If we all contributed, my premiums wouldn't have to help cover the cost of the uninsured, who skip out on their bills.

I believe all social services geared toward the general public is a step closer to tyranny.

You don't have to look far. Social Security, the govt tells you when you CAN retire. you don't decide. Recently, the threat was out that recipients might not get their checks if the govt. couldn't agree on a spending cut solutions? (blackmail anyone) After paying in for your entire life, if you die at a young age your entire contibution goes to the state? Great plan!!!!!!!!!

I want our govt. to get in this century, and quite making excuses. Also, I would love for Americans to realize we are sovereign individuals.

Planned insurance by our "betters" is no more arcaic than social security. It's nothing more than a way to buy votes.

Golddust, I am sorry for your hardships but it is important to remember that all countries are paying high health care costs too thru taxes. According to the OECD, England's single earning families with 2 children pay more than 10% income tax and SSC than American single income married families do. This stat does not even account for value added taxes of close to 22% where as Us pays anaverage of 7% state sales taxes. England is one of the lower taxed socialized nations and it still has just an income tax rate of about 59.372% ours is 47.207%. To my single income family of three that is a difference of 18,000 per year about your premium plus copays. We are a fortunate family with above average income, in the most expensive state to live in, so with the COLA not such a high income... but if you look at the stats on the link I have provided, and it is an impartial org and collects its data from member countries own submissions, you might be surprised that you actually pay alot less than other nations citizens do and have many more choices too. Also remember these stats do not even show how much extra taxes the other nations pay in VAT's some as high as 20%. For example in the neatherlands there is a 6% tax on food! and a 19% on goods and gas in many of these countries can cost +$8/gallon.
Healthcare costs are universal.

Here is a link that might be useful: tax comparisions w/in developed countries

Magglepuss,

If you die young, your family get survivor benefits. If you become disabled before retirement, you get Social Security. If you become disabled and have minor children, they also get Social Security.

From the Social Security FAQs
What are the requirements to receive Social Security benefits?

Social Security is more than retirement.

Many people think of Social Security as just a retirement program. Although it is true that most of the people receiving Social Security receive retirement benefits, many others get Social Security because they are:

Disabled, or
A spouse or child of someone who gets Social Security; or
A spouse or child of a worker who died; or
A dependent parent of a worker who died.

Each type of benefit has different requirements and depending on your circumstances, you may be eligible. We want you to understand what Social Security can mean to you and your family's financial future. Our publication Understanding The Benefits explains the basics of the Social Security retirement, disability and survivors insurance programs.

The government does not dictate when I retire, it only dictates when I am eligible to receive my social security benefits. I can decide to retire sooner. These decisions are not made by our "betters," but by our elected representatives. My thought is that we will see little to no change as there is very little consensus in this country on which way things should change and because there are differing opinions of what could be considered "archaic."

"You don't have to look far. Social Security, the govt tells you when you CAN retire. you don't decide. Recently, the threat was out that recipients might not get their checks if the govt. couldn't agree on a spending cut solutions? (blackmail anyone) After paying in for your entire life, if you die at a young age your entire contibution goes to the state? Great plan!!!!!!!!!"

So. Does this mean you favor Social Security? Or that you do not?

"I would love for Americans to realize we are sovereign individuals."

Can you elaborate on that?

magglepuss - you and I have a very different way of defining. Websters New World Dictionary - tyranny n.1. the authority government, etc. of a tyrant. 2. cruel and unjust use of power. 3. a tyrannical act - tyranous - adj.

How is that you equate social services with tyranny?

Just a stab in the dark, but I am guessing that you would not be in favor of a revised health care system here in the US wherein everyone would have access to health care regardless of income? Even if that is your belief, I do not understand how you equate the government trying to find a solution to care for those who are either uninsured, unemployed, or for whatever reason, do not have the means to purchase health care coverage. I just do not equate that with being tyranny.

As far as the government telling you when you can retire. That statement is blatantly false. I could retire at 50 if I had the wherewithal to support my lifestyle independent of governmental support/supplement, i.e.; social security and/or medicare. So, no the government does not mandate when we are able to retire, it only provides that the benefits of social security and medicare will be not be afforded until you reach the minimum retirement age to collect said benefits.

Sadly, I think you will be disappointed when the Republican convention comes and goes leaving Ron Paul yet again, sidelined because of his severe stance on social services/government.

Magglepuss, I believe all social services geared toward the general public is a step closer to tyranny.
You don't have to look far. Social Security, the govt tells you when you CAN retire. you don't decide
SSA does NOT tell you when you can retire. It tells you when you can begin collecting benefits, either partial or full benefits. Too many are throwing out statements that they want people to think are facts when they are not. Won't even get into any more of this thread except for the following (note the portion I have put in bold):

Tyranny? "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Cyn, isn't it funny how that bit about promoting the general welfare always seems to get left out when people quote the Constitution?

I never said buying insurance created a hardship. Just that my policy sucks for the high cost.

Cyn, thanks for the lesson. It's a great thing to remind some of us that we are supposed to care about each other.

Agreed, terriks and golddust, but I am now zipping my mouth shut or I will go all political. ;)

The 13th Admendment is about slavery, surely you don't think we're slaves to the government?

I wish I had paid more attention on this, dh tried explaining it to me the other day. It was on the news last week that more people die from cancer in England due to their universal health care, and it's mostly poor people.

Apparently, their insurance policies only allows free yearly screenings, (Mammograms, etc) when they hit 50 yrs. old. So many people come in riddled with cancer and it's too late for them because they couldn't afford to pay for free screening.

Oakley, I can't speak for England but here in Canada no one tells us how many 'anything' we can have per year. I can have two or three mammograms per year if my family physician orders them. So can 'the poor' because they have the same access to health care that I do.

I'm curious - how many free yearly mammograms do you think women should get? Especially since there are recent studies showing that more is not necessarily better with mammograms. How many free yearly mammograms do the poor, uninsured in the US get?

too late for them because they couldn't afford to pay for free screening???? "Pay for free"...really?

Please folks, think before you write! This is part of why there are so many misconceptions flying around everywhere.

When comparing countries/health plans etc, there is no one answer for everything.

In my province of BC, what I pay for health insurance may not be the same that everyone else in BC pays. The same goes for taxes. There are just too many variables that have to be accounted for.

What Americans pay seems to vary greatly also .... you just can't pick a number and say it applies to everyone.

Early detection is key to cancer survival rates and England does not cover early screening as well as many other countries do and thus they are near the bottom of many cancer survival stats with the Us, Japan and France at the top of a 2008 study of five common cancers. In our country those on government healthcare fare much worse than those with private insurance, food for thought. It seems that poorer people everywhere fare worse than those with more. This article is very recent and informative for comparing life expectancy and treatments between countries. You may be surprised but if you take away accidental deaths(cars, violence, overdoses) guess which country has the highest life expectancy, yes the USA does. The new OECD ten year study has not been published yet and the chart in the link is the most recent data available so this might change but probally not that much.

Here is a link that might be useful: wealth begets health

Sorry the link for the cancer survival study disappeared. Here is an article about that study.

Here is a link that might be useful: cancer study by country

A great graphic.....

Here is a link that might be useful: Cancer around the world...

Bestyears, I may be reading the chart wrongly, but I am not certain that middle africa has less cancer than Australia I think third worlds are reporting less cancer numbers than the developed countries because cause of death is not always determined and cancer screening is often not done in the poorer nations. You can not report cancer with out testing and finding cancer so I can not tell what the chart is meant to be proving. There seem to be lots of variables missing. The nations with the lower numbers are, for the most part, the same nations with the worst 5 year survival rates too.