First off, if you're going to reply to someone's post, reply to THAT post, not something in the same general area. Close doesn't always count. You are lucky I read this.

I'll apologize for "like a pig ignorant peasant"- let's just go with "like a fool". Please note the use of "like"- I know you aren't ignorant, nor are you a fool, but you were sounding it. Comparison, not description. Sometimes I sound like a ass, but my ears aren't long, I'm not grey, and I'm not a hoofed quadruped.

As for funding, look into it- you'd be amazed how much of the money comes indirectly from the feds. Private medical research in the US is almost as heavily underwritten as high energy physics is. Grants cover a lot of the "real medicine" (as opposed to what I call "vanity medicine" and the desperately hanging onto old age by any thread), and lot is from whatever replaced DARPA in the alphabet soup when it was renamed. And pretty much every researcher, tech, and doc had federal loans and grants for their schooling; pharmaceutical companies and research universities get tax breaks. All that adds up to tax payer dollars even if it isn't in big, bold, red letters.

Following your proposal would have condemned a lot of people to death. Your statement was a blanket statement, no funding, period, at any point in history. You didn't say self inflicted, you didn't say stupid stuff (hair loss, can't get it up-itis), your statement was all condemning. If you'd been selective... But you weren't. Instead, you damned every dollar ever spent on TB, polio, smallpox and cholera research, along with every bit of DoD/VA funded research. And the existence of the FDA. Your stated proposal is inherently unsound and short sighted.

But I will admit that I bit your head off a little lower than I intended- I was thinking the tips of your ears and got your collar bones. There has been a lot of paranoia on this thread, and the forum in general has had taken a rather anti-science, illogical feel to it on several recent occasions. I hold ETSers to a higher standard of the mind, maybe unfairly, than I do the average person. You got the brunt of my annoyance and frustration, when you only should have gotten some of it.

*holds out hand* Shake?

"...ED meds..."

What are those???

While not exactly on topic here, I have a huge problem with my tax dollars being spent on some federal grant (as in not payed back) to study the sex life of the Ethopian pisant, or some other silly thing. Sure, it might help some stuggling student get his/her masters in pisant, and a few pisants might get their rocks off, but I (we) shouldn't have to foot the bill...

Hi MDinana,

Yes, there is private supplemental insurance available in the UK, but you wouldn't want to rely on this insurance without access to the NHS. This insurance will get you a few additional extras not provided by the NHS such as limited cosmetic surgery and the occasional medical checkup when requested and some additional cosmetic dentistry services. It will not however pay for any real life medical emergencies or long term care, as the private companies will bail out and you will be left with just the so called 'basic' service provided by the NHS. The private medical insurance does not cover the basics in medical care. There have been many cases where privately treated patients in private hospitals have had to rushed to the NHS to save their lives.

There is care for the elderly with long term medical problems. To say that an elderly person with cancer will just be sent home to die is incorrect. There is hospice care for anyone with terminal cancer, although some may choose to die at home with their families around them. In Scotland there is also long term personal care for the elderly with a mix of private and local government care homes (this would be free long term care provided by local government services). This free long term care for the elderly has not been available in England and Wales.

The NHS is by no means perfect, there are problems with over management and the rationing of resources at the moment because of government plans to introduce an internal market system of health care (large computer system contracts for the eventual billing systems have been awarded to US corporations with the aim to privatise the NHS, with the aim of asset stripping the NHS organisation have resulted in the billions of dollars of tax payers money being wasted) but it does give everyone in the UK access to free medical care without worrying about being landed a huge bill at the end. It is free at the point of use. It might not be up to the very best standards of medical care available for the top five or ten percent of the population in the US, but it provides good quality medical care for everyone in the UK at a substantially lower proportion of the countries GDP.

The UK NHS has nothing to learn from the free market US medical care system. It may well treat the top 10 percent of US citizens with the best health care in the world but this is at the expense of the bottom thirty percent who get very little health care.

There is some ring of truth to the notion of socialized medicine. After all, look at how low malpractice insurance rates are in the UK. If you go to the doctor there and something goes wrong, it isn't automatically a windfall for the patient. One of the banes of our form of free enterprise is the propensity for unsatisfied consumers to litigate. I can't recall exactly how much of our GDP is committed to lawyering, but it has got to be significant, and significantly more than any other country ever, and it is growing.

However, back to the point. I do feel that in our economic model, except for the more militaristic aspects such as Ironraven cited, private sector interests would tend to pick up the slack on R&D funding should government spending diminish. It may not be quid pro quo, but would certainly be more economically efficient. As with any other industry, there are always certain safegaurds there to protect the consumer from excessive price escalation and market monopoly. It is this limbo state we have presently that seems to wrankle so many. Just like Social Security, Medicare and Welfare have also proven to be quite counterproductive to our long term stability. Governmental inefficiencies are the absolute worst from a financial standpoint, just look at the Postal Service, or Amtrak. Either you give up and commit 100% to a government run program much like the Europeans have, or else you decide that government has no business funding goods and services. All this gray area is wreaking havoc on us. Kinda reminds me of the poker games we played aboard ship, where dealers would call 3 or 4 wildcards, low chicago, high chicago, and you'd have so many people splitting the pot that no one won, but the game went on. Regulation is sometimes necessary, but artifical comptetition via subsidy and treaty just hurts the market and the consumer alike, and accomplishes nothing positive. I would prefer a free market to social services, but even going wholly PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. would be better than what we have now. That's something I never thought I would hear myself say, until about a decade ago, when NAFTA went into effect.

[/quote]The UK NHS has nothing to learn from the free market US medical care system. It may well treat the top 10 percent of US citizens with the best health care in the world but this is at the expense of the bottom thirty percent who get very little health care.[/quote]

Actually, not quite true. The American system takes very good care of the top 20% and the bottom 20% income levels. It takes reasonably good care of another 30% or so of the people in the middle. All told, it is about 30% of Americans who comprise the so-called "working poor" who do not have good ongoing access to health-promoting medical care. Most hospitals are required by law to render emergency, life saving treatment without regard to whether or not the patient has any ability to pay. Many community hospitals cannot turn away anyone who requires medical treatment (other than elective, cosmetic, etc), regardless of ability to pay. The problem is, a bill is still generated, and it can hang out there for years, ruining the credit of the uninsured patient, leading in some cases to loss of house, bankruptcy, etc. The unpaid blls are a big part of the cost of medical care in this country. Ask any businessman: if his rate of dishonor on his billings is 1% he can keep his prices a lot lower than if it's 10%.

The American system unrealistically tends to assume that people will make reasonable efforts to protect themselves and their families by setting aside some of their own money against the possibility of medical treatment. There are several tax incentive-supported plans to do so, but the response to this approach has been underwhelming. IMHO many people do not think they should have to assume financial responsibility for their own medical care.

I don't have "the" answer, and I doubt if anyone does. However, I suspect that universal, government funded (which is to say, us) and government controlled (which is to say, not us) medical care is coming, and soon.

Bentirran
Thanks for clearing up the supplemental insurance bit. Very concise and clear answer. I'm also glad you pointed out Scotland's difference from England and Wales. I kind of assumed that being "UK" that everything would be pretty similar. I, like most Americans probably, don't have a good grasp on the internal political differences between the 3 countries on the island.

I hope my post original reply to you didn't come off as condescending, or implying that the American model is better than a social/British model. I feel that each system has pros and cons, like most of life. As for America having the best health system in the world, I don't now about that. We've got some pretty dismal statistics in certain areas, such as neonatal/newborn death rates. The US can be well behind the curve in some areas!

I've just been fed a lot of info in the last 4 years of school, in both health-econ and ethics classes. For example, the figure of "45 million Americans without health insurance" is always thrown around. That's about 1/6 of the US population, obviously something needs to change with our system. I just wanted to point out some ideas of why our system is the way it is, and some areas where our 2 systems differ.

This is something to consider when numbers get thrown around. I don;t deny them, I just get suspicious.

Ever heard the claim that 1 in 5 American children are "starving"? I forget the Organization which makes the claim during an advertisement, but it's popular and widespread on AM radio. Several of a series of most asked questions on questionnaires doled out to students ranging from 6 to 12 is: Did you eat breakfast this morning? Do you - a) regularly eat breakfast, b) sometimes eat breakfast, c) never eat breakfast. How many times a week would you say you eat breakfast? a) 7 b) 5 c) 3 d) less than 3, etc etc etc.

Kids are notorious for not eating breakfast (and other meals). This of course falls back on the parents but it doesn;t change the fact. Now, a kid who didn;t eat breakfast this morning might be considered by one person to be "hungry", by another to be "starving". Either way, for the benefit of our cause, let's just call 'em starving. We need a government-funded free breakfast program anyway becasue our free lunch and free dinner programs are incomplete without it. In high school, we might consider throwing in the free tattoo removal program to make the free babysitting program (for young mothers [kids] 13 and over, of course) a complete series.

Another thing to consider concerning the estimated 1/6 of Americans without health insurance: let's not forget why some of these estimates are made.... for the purpose of advocating the socialization of medicine. Some are in favor of that, some are not. But wherever our loyalties lie, nobody really wants statistical data that's intentionally tilted to one side or the other....well, I don;t anyway, and I trust most others wouldn;t. The problem is, without funding (maybe I could get a government-funded PAC grant) a study of our own, we're left with what's reported to us. Note I said "reported to us" as opposed to saying "what's *available to be* reported to us". Now, it's not that we rely solely on picture-show media, the fact is, there are studies that will never be printed in ANY publication. Why not? Let's all guess.... because one is as good as another.

I think there needs to be health care, food, cars, babysitters, computers and internet, microwaves, free tattoos and removals, higher-education, Nike-brand tennis shoes, beer, medicines, and top-rated surgeons standing by for all. My concern is the source of the funding and the method of payment.

Now, if we say that if the Government doesn;t pay for it the money won;t come... that's analogous to saying that since America is one of the richest nations on our earth, we're depriving riches from other less-fortunate nations. As if there's only so much money and, since we have say 75% of it, the rest of the world can only get 25%. Now, that's not right is it? We forget that as our taxes go up our philanthropic donations go down; as Government steps in private sector often steps out.

What are the average taxes paid in Scotland and the UK? What are the maximums and minimums? I'm asking here because I don;t know.... but I want to.

No, -there's no such kind of Conspirational Holdback going on. I have no Concrete Proof, -but I still know it!

But it is often the case, -that after Billions and Billions are thrown at it!, -Year after Year and Decade after Decade!, -While some measures of Progress may have been made toward the Goal, -Still no Cure has been arrived at! Acheivement of the Goal is not yet anywhere in sight!

This doesn't mean that in all such cases, -that we still shouldn't try. Including financially. But it does make you sometimes wonder, -if the Goal, Noble and Needed though it may be, -is worth the Buck and Chase!

Science and Research must get its Significant, Adequate, Funding. Often such Research cannot proceed otherwise. But Over and Beyond such a Due Point, -We can't always just keep on throwing Money at a Matter or Problem. In such cases, -Science and Research should firstly proceed along a more Natural, -"State of the Art", -kind of Track. (If you and others there get my Drift, -which I think that you Reasonably may). (Let me help you more towards that Drift, if needed, by an Example. As follows).-

For example Nixon's early 70s War on Cancer. I remember the Announcement being made, with Considerable Fanfare. The Goal is both Needed and Noble. But though some Measures of Progress have since been made on various Fronts therein, (Not all Neccessarily due to the "War" and Funding, -Some may have come about in that Natural Progression as I've mentioned, -anyway), -Cancer rages on Cureless! (For the very most part anyway). Makes one wonder how much Value there's Really been for the Buck! How Cost Effective, -or perhaps Cost Wasteful, -it all really is!

But Proceed about it the "More Natural Way" though, -and a Cancer Cure will come when a Cancer Cure comes! Billions could end up being Saved.

But then on another hand, -some 20 years Down the Road, or 10 years, -or even Two years on, -the Great Payoff may come! At Long Last. (This too, -may not entirely be due to such Funding). Reminds me of a saying I've once come up with about Investing, -"The only Investments which ever Pay Off, -are those Initially Made"!

But you still've sometimes got to Wonder!, -at the "Wisdom" and Efficacy of just throwing Money at something!, -sometimes!

It comes down to such a Continuously Renewed, Judgement Call and Balancing Act, -I guess!

Hi Stretch,

The UK tax system is quite a complicated thing to behold , but here is an example for income tax,

Basic rate of taxation assuming $1.95 to the ?1.00

Income Tax Brackets and rates.

$10,774 ? $14,733 - 10%
$14,734 ? $75,123 - 22%
$75,124 ? no upper limit ? 40%

Of course more income at the 40% rate you have the more likely you would employ tax avoidance schemes.
(although generally if it is getting above $100,000,000 you can generally decide to pay the Inland Revenue what you think is a fair sum i.e. 5-10% or nothing at all.)

To these nominal rates there is also something called National Insurance Contributions NICs, which are theoretically collected to pay for the NHS and state pension provision. This is far to complicated to describe here but typically the average earner will have around an additional 9-11% of NICs, though it is capped at around the upper limit of $75,124

National Minium Wage = ?5.35 per hour = $10.4

There are of course lots of hidden taxes on fuel, private pension provision and Value Added Tax (VAT at 17.5% on goods and services excluding items such as clothes, food and books etc) i.e. mostly on what people decide to spend their money on.

Typically around 40 - 42 percent of GDP is government spending. i.e. collected taxation.

Hi MDinana,

I actually didn't think anything you have said in your post was in anyway condescending. Only by putting forward differing viewpoints can such interesting debates take place. I guess the debate about comparing free market and PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. medical provision is really just a distillation of the ideas put forward by philosopher Adam Smith in his writings called An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations available at http://geolib.com/smith.adam/woncont.html
The economics of health provision whether provided by the free market or PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. means as others have pointed out can be compared to the choices made when purchasing simple consumer goods such as a computer or vehicle or an internet service provider. The difference is that the apparent wealth put on display to satisfy our own egos in front of others doesn't impress the grim reaper when he taps his bony finger on the shoulder. But thats not to say I haven't been impressed by the optimism displayed whilst standing in the heart of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh's tomb.