 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Ain't Britain's NHS grand?... |
|
Page 10 of 13 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| turtoni... |
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 26, 3:50 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip)
[quote]And, as I have said numerous time before the NHS costs an average of
£2000 per capita, which you pay when you work, not when you are ill..
Which is about $4000 a year in DOLLARS.
No its more like $3200.
How much do you have to pay for 100% coverage.?
[/quote]
Certainly not that much. But the UK's national insurance also covers
you for a period of unemployment and a small government pension upon
retirement at 65. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| chazwin... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 5:55 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 26, 3:50 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip)
And, as I have said numerous time before the NHS costs an average of
£2000 per capita, which you pay when you work, not when you are ill.
Which is about $4000 a year in DOLLARS.
No its more like $3200.
How much do you have to pay for 100% coverage.?
Certainly not that much. But the UK's national insurance also covers
you for a period of unemployment and a small government pension upon
retirement at 65.
[/quote]
Why is it that no AMerican on this or any other NG has openly admitted
how much 100% medical cover actually COSTS them?
What are they scared of?
The meta-economic truth is that, as a nation, the US spends nearly
twice per capita on health care and fails to cover a large percentage
of its population. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 5:09 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 5:55 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Oct 26, 3:50 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip)
And, as I have said numerous time before the NHS costs an average of
£2000 per capita, which you pay when you work, not when you are ill.
Which is about $4000 a year in DOLLARS.
No its more like $3200.
How much do you have to pay for 100% coverage.?
Certainly not that much. But the UK's national insurance also covers
you for a period of unemployment and a small government pension upon
retirement at 65.
Why is it that no AMerican on this or any other NG has openly admitted
how much 100% medical cover actually COSTS them?
[/quote]
Because you're a raging limey kisser?
[quote]What are they scared of?
The meta-economic truth is that, as a nation, the US spends nearly
twice per capita on health care and fails to cover a large percentage
of its population.
[/quote]
It costs a single person about $120 a month for very good coverage at
my place of employment. A large percentage of Americans don't actually
have to pay any insurance since it's included as an employment
benefit.
HTHelps. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 1Z... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 3 Nov, 05:15, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
[quote]It costs a single person about $120 a month for very good coverage at
my place of employment.
[/quote]
Well cherry-picked. The NHS will automatically cover
non-workign spouses and kids. How much does that
klnd of cover cost?
[quote]A large percentage of Americans don't actually
have to pay any insurance since it's included as an employment
benefit.
[/quote]
Somebody pays. Bundling it into a salary package makes
it fairly unnoticeable, but so does bundling it into general taxation |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 12:15 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 5:09 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:55 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Oct 26, 3:50 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip)
And, as I have said numerous time before the NHS costs an average of
£2000 per capita, which you pay when you work, not when you are ill.
Which is about $4000 a year in DOLLARS.
No its more like $3200.
How much do you have to pay for 100% coverage.?
Certainly not that much. But the UK's national insurance also covers
you for a period of unemployment and a small government pension upon
retirement at 65.
Why is it that no AMerican on this or any other NG has openly admitted
how much 100% medical cover actually COSTS them?
Because you're a raging limey kisser?
What are they scared of?
The meta-economic truth is that, as a nation, the US spends nearly
twice per capita on health care and fails to cover a large percentage
of its population.
It costs a single person about $120 a month for very good coverage at
my place of employment. A large percentage of Americans don't actually
have to pay any insurance since it's included as an employment
benefit.
[/quote]
So, receiving an 'employment benefit' in lieu of salary is not the
same as a cost?
sigh
The example you cite means, if the situation is typical, that the
single person is paying USD 6,000 to 8,000 a year. And people who are
self-employed or work for small businesses, including the small
business owner, are subsidizing it probably in the range of
1,000-2,000.
-tg
[quote]
HTHelps.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 9:34 am, John Stafford <n... at (no spam) droffats.ten> wrote:
[quote]In article
09cb3ad6-e168-4113-995e-6fff4d683... at (no spam) w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
It costs a single person about $120 a month for very good coverage at
my place of employment. A large percentage of Americans don't actually
have to pay any insurance since it's included as an employment
benefit.
Wow, that's cheap.
That's your part of the fee. How much does your employer pay?
[/quote]
I'm not sure how much they pay but it's more. Plus you have to
remember that we have to make co-payments for various things. Like a
visit to my GP, i would have to make a co-pay of $20 plus the cost of
the medications which could be expensive but for most of the generics
it's come down a lot. If you're on a regular generic med it costs
about $30 for a three month supply. For non-generic for a three mouth
supply it costs $50. I haven't been sick for many years, but i do go
and see the doctor a couple of times a year for my regular checkup. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 9:21 am, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On 3 Nov, 05:15, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
It costs a single person about $120 a month for very good coverage at
my place of employment.
Well cherry-picked. The NHS will automatically cover
non-workign spouses and kids. How much does that
klnd of cover cost?
[/quote]
For My wife and me it's $350 a month for the best plan.
[quote]A large percentage of Americans don't actually
have to pay any insurance since it's included as an employment
benefit.
Somebody pays. Bundling it into a salary package makes
it fairly unnoticeable, but so does bundling it into general taxation
[/quote]
Who said anything about not paying? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 9:32 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 12:15 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:09 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:55 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Oct 26, 3:50 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip)
And, as I have said numerous time before the NHS costs an average of
£2000 per capita, which you pay when you work, not when you are ill.
Which is about $4000 a year in DOLLARS.
No its more like $3200.
How much do you have to pay for 100% coverage.?
Certainly not that much. But the UK's national insurance also covers
you for a period of unemployment and a small government pension upon
retirement at 65.
Why is it that no AMerican on this or any other NG has openly admitted
how much 100% medical cover actually COSTS them?
Because you're a raging limey kisser?
What are they scared of?
The meta-economic truth is that, as a nation, the US spends nearly
twice per capita on health care and fails to cover a large percentage
of its population.
It costs a single person about $120 a month for very good coverage at
my place of employment. A large percentage of Americans don't actually
have to pay any insurance since it's included as an employment
benefit.
So, receiving an 'employment benefit' in lieu of salary is not the
same as a cost?
[/quote]
No.
[quote]sigh
The example you cite means, if the situation is typical, that the
single person is paying USD 6,000 to 8,000 a year. And people who are
self-employed or work for small businesses, including the small
business owner, are subsidizing it probably in the range of
1,000-2,000.
-tg
[/quote]
How do you figure that? $120 x 12 = $1440 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<09cb3ad6-e168-4113-995e-6fff4d6835b1 at (no spam) w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
turtoni <turtoni at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
[quote]It costs a single person about $120 a month for very good coverage at
my place of employment. A large percentage of Americans don't actually
have to pay any insurance since it's included as an employment
benefit.
[/quote]
Wow, that's cheap.
That's your part of the fee. How much does your employer pay? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 1:16 pm, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 9:32 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:15 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:09 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:55 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Oct 26, 3:50 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip)
And, as I have said numerous time before the NHS costs an average of
£2000 per capita, which you pay when you work, not when you are ill.
Which is about $4000 a year in DOLLARS.
No its more like $3200.
How much do you have to pay for 100% coverage.?
Certainly not that much. But the UK's national insurance also covers
you for a period of unemployment and a small government pension upon
retirement at 65.
Why is it that no AMerican on this or any other NG has openly admitted
how much 100% medical cover actually COSTS them?
Because you're a raging limey kisser?
What are they scared of?
The meta-economic truth is that, as a nation, the US spends nearly
twice per capita on health care and fails to cover a large percentage
of its population.
It costs a single person about $120 a month for very good coverage at
my place of employment. A large percentage of Americans don't actually
have to pay any insurance since it's included as an employment
benefit.
So, receiving an 'employment benefit' in lieu of salary is not the
same as a cost?
No.
[/quote]
Why not?
-tg
[quote]sigh
The example you cite means, if the situation is typical, that the
single person is paying USD 6,000 to 8,000 a year. And people who are
self-employed or work for small businesses, including the small
business owner, are subsidizing it probably in the range of
1,000-2,000.
-tg
How do you figure that? $120 x 12 = $1440[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 5:31 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 1:16 pm, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 9:32 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:15 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:09 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:55 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Oct 26, 3:50 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip)
And, as I have said numerous time before the NHS costs an average of
£2000 per capita, which you pay when you work, not when you are ill.
Which is about $4000 a year in DOLLARS.
No its more like $3200.
How much do you have to pay for 100% coverage.?
Certainly not that much. But the UK's national insurance also covers
you for a period of unemployment and a small government pension upon
retirement at 65.
Why is it that no AMerican on this or any other NG has openly admitted
how much 100% medical cover actually COSTS them?
Because you're a raging limey kisser?
What are they scared of?
The meta-economic truth is that, as a nation, the US spends nearly
twice per capita on health care and fails to cover a large percentage
of its population.
It costs a single person about $120 a month for very good coverage at
my place of employment. A large percentage of Americans don't actually
have to pay any insurance since it's included as an employment
benefit.
So, receiving an 'employment benefit' in lieu of salary is not the
same as a cost?
No.
Why not?
-tg
[/quote]
I meant, no i'm not saying that it "is not the same as a cost".
You're a teacher aren't you? You've always had good health insurance.
Why are you guys always against capitialism? Do you think you'd have a
better standard of living in the UK as a teacher? Good luck. By the
way you might want to take some math classes. Or please explain how
you came up with the "single person is paying USD 6,000 to 8,000 a
year" in health insurance. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 5:42 pm, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 5:31 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:16 pm, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 9:32 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:15 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:09 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:55 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Oct 26, 3:50 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip)
And, as I have said numerous time before the NHS costs an average of
£2000 per capita, which you pay when you work, not when you are ill.
Which is about $4000 a year in DOLLARS.
No its more like $3200.
How much do you have to pay for 100% coverage.?
Certainly not that much. But the UK's national insurance also covers
you for a period of unemployment and a small government pension upon
retirement at 65.
Why is it that no AMerican on this or any other NG has openly admitted
how much 100% medical cover actually COSTS them?
Because you're a raging limey kisser?
What are they scared of?
The meta-economic truth is that, as a nation, the US spends nearly
twice per capita on health care and fails to cover a large percentage
of its population.
It costs a single person about $120 a month for very good coverage at
my place of employment. A large percentage of Americans don't actually
have to pay any insurance since it's included as an employment
benefit.
So, receiving an 'employment benefit' in lieu of salary is not the
same as a cost?
No.
Why not?
-tg
I meant, no i'm not saying that it "is not the same as a cost".
[/quote]
If it is the same as a cost, then you must figure it in. When you do
that, the cost is in the range I described, depending on where you
work. Use the 6K if you like but that is about as low as it could be.
-tg
[quote]
You're a teacher aren't you? You've always had good health insurance.
Why are you guys always against capitialism? Do you think you'd have a
better standard of living in the UK as a teacher? Good luck. By the
way you might want to take some math classes. Or please explain how
you came up with the "single person is paying USD 6,000 to 8,000 a
year" in health insurance.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 5:49 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 5:42 pm, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:31 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:16 pm, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 9:32 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:15 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:09 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:55 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Oct 26, 3:50 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip)
And, as I have said numerous time before the NHS costs an average of
£2000 per capita, which you pay when you work, not when you are ill.
Which is about $4000 a year in DOLLARS.
No its more like $3200.
How much do you have to pay for 100% coverage.?
Certainly not that much. But the UK's national insurance also covers
you for a period of unemployment and a small government pension upon
retirement at 65.
Why is it that no AMerican on this or any other NG has openly admitted
how much 100% medical cover actually COSTS them?
Because you're a raging limey kisser?
What are they scared of?
The meta-economic truth is that, as a nation, the US spends nearly
twice per capita on health care and fails to cover a large percentage
of its population.
It costs a single person about $120 a month for very good coverage at
my place of employment. A large percentage of Americans don't actually
have to pay any insurance since it's included as an employment
benefit.
So, receiving an 'employment benefit' in lieu of salary is not the
same as a cost?
No.
Why not?
-tg
I meant, no i'm not saying that it "is not the same as a cost".
If it is the same as a cost, then you must figure it in. When you do
that, the cost is in the range I described, depending on where you
work. Use the 6K if you like but that is about as low as it could be.
-tg
[/quote]
How do you figure that? If the person pays $120 a month for health
insurance the person is paying $1440 a year. Please present your cites
for the other costs for the employer. As it stands now you're saying
the employer pays four times more than the employee. WHICH COMES OUT
OF THE EMPLOYERS PROFITS. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 5:56 pm, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 5:49 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:42 pm, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:31 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:16 pm, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 9:32 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:15 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:09 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:55 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Oct 26, 3:50 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip)
And, as I have said numerous time before the NHS costs an average of
£2000 per capita, which you pay when you work, not when you are ill.
Which is about $4000 a year in DOLLARS.
No its more like $3200.
How much do you have to pay for 100% coverage.?
Certainly not that much. But the UK's national insurance also covers
you for a period of unemployment and a small government pension upon
retirement at 65.
Why is it that no AMerican on this or any other NG has openly admitted
how much 100% medical cover actually COSTS them?
Because you're a raging limey kisser?
What are they scared of?
The meta-economic truth is that, as a nation, the US spends nearly
twice per capita on health care and fails to cover a large percentage
of its population.
It costs a single person about $120 a month for very good coverage at
my place of employment. A large percentage of Americans don't actually
have to pay any insurance since it's included as an employment
benefit.
So, receiving an 'employment benefit' in lieu of salary is not the
same as a cost?
No.
Why not?
-tg
I meant, no i'm not saying that it "is not the same as a cost".
If it is the same as a cost, then you must figure it in. When you do
that, the cost is in the range I described, depending on where you
work. Use the 6K if you like but that is about as low as it could be.
-tg
How do you figure that? If the person pays $120 a month for health
insurance the person is paying $1440 a year. Please present your cites
for the other costs for the employer. As it stands now you're saying
the employer pays four times more than the employee. WHICH COMES OUT
OF THE EMPLOYERS PROFITS.
[/quote]
Yes, employers pay about 4 times more although as I said this varies.
Employee share has been rising in recent years to the 25% range in
many cases.
Now, please tell me that you realize that all employee compensation
comes out of employer's profits---you can't really be that stupid?
-tg |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 6:02 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 5:56 pm, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:49 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:42 pm, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:31 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:16 pm, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 9:32 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:15 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:09 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:55 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Oct 26, 3:50 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
(snip)
And, as I have said numerous time before the NHS costs an average of
£2000 per capita, which you pay when you work, not when you are ill.
Which is about $4000 a year in DOLLARS.
No its more like $3200.
How much do you have to pay for 100% coverage.?
Certainly not that much. But the UK's national insurance also covers
you for a period of unemployment and a small government pension upon
retirement at 65.
Why is it that no AMerican on this or any other NG has openly admitted
how much 100% medical cover actually COSTS them?
Because you're a raging limey kisser?
What are they scared of?
The meta-economic truth is that, as a nation, the US spends nearly
twice per capita on health care and fails to cover a large percentage
of its population.
It costs a single person about $120 a month for very good coverage at
my place of employment. A large percentage of Americans don't actually
have to pay any insurance since it's included as an employment
benefit.
So, receiving an 'employment benefit' in lieu of salary is not the
same as a cost?
No.
Why not?
-tg
I meant, no i'm not saying that it "is not the same as a cost".
If it is the same as a cost, then you must figure it in. When you do
that, the cost is in the range I described, depending on where you
work. Use the 6K if you like but that is about as low as it could be.
-tg
How do you figure that? If the person pays $120 a month for health
insurance the person is paying $1440 a year. Please present your cites
for the other costs for the employer. As it stands now you're saying
the employer pays four times more than the employee. WHICH COMES OUT
OF THE EMPLOYERS PROFITS.
Yes, employers pay about 4 times more although as I said this varies.
[/quote]
Please provide me with a reference to your claim.
[quote]Employee share has been rising in recent years to the 25% range in
many cases.
[/quote]
This is true for many countries. Obviously all health care systems
need to be overhauled.
[quote]Now, please tell me that you realize that all employee compensation
comes out of employer's profits---you can't really be that stupid?
[/quote]
So wise one, please tell me how employers make money. I know in your
case our taxes pay for it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:07 am
|
|