> my coverage is maximum out of pocket per year $5-7k. It's very reasonable to assume HN readers make more than $50-70k/yr, so that's better than 10% of income

> my coverage is maximum out of pocket per year $5-7k. It's very reasonable to assume HN readers make more than $50-70k/yr, so that's better than 10% of income for the same coverage You're not comparing like with like. Comparing a figure (presumably) calculated by taking the GP's effective tax contributions and multiplying by the proportion of UK public spending that goes to health (~19%)[1], with a figure of the direct cost of insurance, is not an accurate way of comparing healthcare costs between countries. Most actual comparisons I can find between effective cost of healthcare between the US and UK, e.g. [2], seem to conclude that the US pays just over twice as much as the UK per capita (~$7k vs ~3k). (Also, it's not a "flat 10% on all your income", you misunderstand the GP. Our income tax system is progressive, just like the US's. The NHS is funded from general taxation (including NI payments)). [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/mar/20/budget-2013-tax-spending-visualised http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/mar/20/budget-2... [2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhixon/2012/03/01/why-are-u-s-health-care-costs-so-high/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhixon/2012/03/01/why-are-u-s...