How does the UK do it?

Discussion in 'Economics' started by peilthetraveler, Sep 2, 2008.

  1. So they spend close to 100 billion pounds (or 180 billion dollars) for free health care for all 60 million people living in UK. We have 5 times as many people so to do the same thing we need to spend 900 billion. Right now we spend about 600 billion on healthcare. So we just need another 300 billion.

    Heres a bright idea...lets cut back our military! We can cut 300 billion out of their budget and still be number one cant we? I mean whats funny is that if the entire world, every country, took all the money they spend on their military and combined it, it would still be less than what we spend just on our military budget. Is that not proof of overspending. (Currently the military budget of the entire planet is a little less than 1.1 trillion. 626 billion is what we spend in the US (dept of defense + global war on terror))

    So lets stop sending the soldiers out, and bringing back all banged up and maybe that will save a few million on health care for them. (costs alot to get prosthetic arms/legs)

    Hell, if i have to pay a buck or two more per gallon, i can do it. Cant you?
  2. army/war = aggressiveness
    healthcare = protecting what you have

    No use of having protection when you aren't aggressive in getting anything
  3. It's not quite that easy. Health costs per capita in the US are higher because Medicare actually subsidizes a lot of drug R&D that other countries don't pay-in as much for.

    Also, the quality of medical care in the UK is debatable.
  4. I think you raise a good point. Im all for universal healthcare, and we do spend a lot on military. However I think the money would be better taken out of ridiculous government programs that we probably don't even know about. God knows how many billions are being completely wasted each year. lets start with those and then think about reducing things that we actually may need.
  5. No, that logic doesnt work. Look at the U.K. A little over 100 years ago, they nearly ruled the world. (They controlled india, hong kong, african countries, ect...) Then they started giving up all those countries and as soon as they did, they started their universal healthcare.
  6. just21


    Check out the cancer survival league table before you advocate uk health care. If you enjoyed queuing for your iphone then you will love the queues for healthcare in the uk! A better model is social insurance that they have in continental europe. Much better chances of surviving cancer and you get choice, not a monopoly provider.
  7. I have a Canadian friend who says that Canadians often visit the US for health care because they simply cannot get what they need, or have to wait too long.

    I'm not a fan of nationalized health care, but something definitely needs to be done. Maybe allow insurance companies to go national to reduce costs, and put a severe limit on malpractice suits?

    I'm no expert obviously. Just don't nationalize the thing.
  8. kean


  9. Japans model seems interesting.

    I think a big hurdle will be the general bad health of the US.

    That doesn't mean its impossible though. I don't think its "socialist" either. No one should die because they can't afford to pay hospital bills, but also hard working americans shouldnt have to pay billions because people don't practice general heath habits. The latter of course isnt as bad as the former though. We can do it.
  10. Ever visited the UK? Their middle-class is equal to our low-class. You could sacrifice standard of living for lots of dreamy expenses, health care is just one example.

    If Hussein wins, he will gut the military ala Slick Willy, and you will get your wish at the end of his reign in 2017. Ever received free health care? It sucks. So will your wet dream of universal health care. You go first, I will keep my health insurance.
    #10     Sep 2, 2008