Costs of Universal/Socialized Healthcare

Remove all ads!

UK
It increased to 9.4% of GDP in 2006, from 8.6% in 2004 and 7.1% in 2000.

From an individual tax payers perspective it is probably impossible to determine - money from National Insurance, Income Tax, Council Tax and I imagine even VAT on sold products will all contribute into the "pot" that goes to the NHS.

Worth noting that whilst Income Tax and National Insurance hasn't significantly increased since 2000, "stealth" taxes have been introduced, some of which are listed below. Presumably these, and reduced spending in other areas, has paid for the increased spending on the NHS.

* The gradual reduction of the value - and now the complete removal - of the married couple’s allowance for couples aged under age 65.

* The gradual reduction - and now complete removal of mortgage interest tax relief at source (MIRAS).

* The removal of the age-related married couple’s allowance, where neither of the married couple were aged at least 65 on 5 April 2000.

* The removal of the ability of pension funds to recover the tax credit on UK dividend income – which works like compound interest in reverse - meaning that pension contributions will need to be increased to provide the same level of benefits.

* The inability for non-taxpayers to recover the 10 per cent tax credit on UK share dividends.

* The reduction in the level of tax-free savings that can be made each year. Under PEPs/TESSA it was £12,000,(£9,000 for PEPs and £3,000 for the first year of a TESSA). Under the ISA it is £7,000.

* The failure of the higher-rate tax threshold to increase at the same rate as earnings. Since 1988, this threshold has increased by just 52 per cent to £29,400 while average earnings have increased by 84 per cent. Since 1997, approximately 200,000 more people have to pay tax at the top rate.

* The failure of the nil-rate inheritance tax band to increase by the rate of inflation. This means more inheritance tax will become payable - especially on the death of property owners.

* The inability for PEPs and ISAs to recover the tax credit on UK dividends after 5 April 2004.

 

This was exactly the type of info I was looking for. But, as you say, the averages could be misleading, as a significant chunk is paid for by the businesses and the wealthiest of individuals.

Even if you want to take my company as an example, they pay half of the total cost of the insurance, while the other half comes out of my pocket. So really, the cost of my health insurance is over $360 every two weeks for my family - I'm just paying half of it. When you look at the total cost (adding in what my employer pays) it comes very close to the cost you give.

Well that's partly true. For example, if you have some type of illness and don't have health care insurance, you typically can't get insurance. Any "pre-existing condition" as the industry terms it, can disqualify you from getting coverage. In fact, if you have a condition, and don't disclose it at the time you are applying for coverage, you can be initially approved, and then later be denied the coverage. So the issue is if you are already sick, no, you won't be insured. As a result, it is fair to say that in the US we only insure healthier individuals.

I'm surprised that many people say doctors are not well compensated in other countries. In the U.S., a doctor is one of the highest paying jobs out there. Even regular doctors (like GPs) earn well over $100K per year, and specialists can earn several times that amount.

 

I can try and add to to the UK with a few (admittedly major) assupmtions:

Government expenditure in 2005, was 45.5% of GDP. THis was higher than revenue, but lets assume that as tax-payers we end up paying for it at some point in time.
Assuming health-care spending in 2005 was 9% (Split the difference between 2004 and 2006) this equates to about 20% of expenditure.

Now, if we assume that the majority of government revenue is from Tax (there are probably other sources but I don't know how much they would make-up) then we can say that 20% of my taxes go towards the NHS.

If I roughly work out how much tax is going back in terms of Income Tax, National Insurance, Council Tax, VAT on purchase - inc grocery (17.5%), VAT on fuel (70%!) etc, by my reckoning I am funding the NHS to the tune of £4000 per year which currently works out as $8000 (But historically more like $6000).

 

Yikes! That's way more than I pay! $185 x 26 payments years comes out to $4,810 - but that's for three people!

 

Uh...no it wasn't. Healthcare expenditure for 2005-2006 only accounted for 8.3 percent of the UK GDP.

Link.

 

Read the link again. Total health care expenditure was 8.3% if the GDP. Further, health care only comprised 17% of the 2005 budget. Even if what he meant to refer to was the percentage of total government spending going towards health care instead of the percentage of the GDP, he's still wrong.

 

Ah. I re-visited the original post and apparently misinterpreted it. Oops. I initially thought he was trying to draw a parallel between government and out of pocket health care spending.

 

@ Drew,

No probs, I have a tendancy to skim-read as well. I estimated 20% of my Tax, so @ 17%, my figures come down to about £3400, or $6800 at current exchange/ $5100 roughly historical exchange.

@ Aldeth.

Yes, but you haven't factored in that your tax goes to pay for Government-funded programs, which according to Wiki is used by about 27% of the American population and actually funds 45% of health care insurance. Presumably that is also your tax money paying for other people, same as mine does.

(I think I mentioned this in a previous thread - although the Americans claim they don't have a National Health Service, almost 50% of insurance costs, and I assume therfore expenditure are funded by Government, presumably through taxation.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

With an estimated 15% of GDP spent on health care in the US, this translates as about 6.75% of GDP is spent by the Government on health care programs.

Actually, this will probably alter my figures, as I don't know the percentage of health-care spening in the UK through insurance and private health.

 

If that is true, then I have to question why insurance is so expensive, and further then why insurance comapanies are so quick to drop you. Also, are you sure the 27% of Americans who are using these government funded programs aren't people on Medicare and Medicaid? I admit that I just skimmed your link and will look at it in more detail shortly. All I'm saying is that I have never, to my knowledge, got an insurance break from the government. You'd think that if part of your health insurance was being paid for by the government that politicians would be talking about this... especially those politicians who are against universal health care, as they could say, "See - we're already partially funding it anyway."

 

I'm quite sure that they are, but I don't think this weakens his point. People on Medicare are far and away the most expensive people to cover. By comparison, expanding title 19 to cover everyone else (moving over to a single payer system) would be a drop in the bucket.