5 ms·

It's also free in Norway.

by lovskogen 13y ago

ghayes 13y ago
There is no free lunch?
- petercooper 13y ago
  There might be. The US government spends way more money per head on public healthcare than the UK (and only slightly less than Norway) and that's totally separate to all the private spending! http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthc... Procedures are so expensive, doctors so highly paid, and insurers so profitable that the US is essentially subsidizing all that while still not providing universal healthcare. In the UK we're both taxed less AND don't have to have private insurance due to the above. (It does have some downsides though, particularly in not being able to easily 'shop around' or get access to cutting edge/experimental medicine.. it's a bit one size fits all.)
  - aestra 13y ago
    Nobody in the United States gets access to cutting edge/experimental medicine either. Insurances just won't pay for it. They say "too experimental" and "not medically nessessary" is a reason not to pay. I am currently in a 3rd level of appeal to get my insurance company to pay for my medication they claim is "too experimental" (it isn't by the way!!!)
  - switch007 13y ago
    A top-level policy with Bupa/Pru will get you easy access to top hospitals in the UK (including London), for diagnostics at least. I just got a quote for £70/mo (it will almost double if you claim, however). EDIT: hm, not sure about 'experimental', but top quality/teaching hospitals anyway.
klausjensen 13y ago
It certainly is not. It is paid for by one of the highest tax rates in the world. I currently work in Norway and pay more than 50% in income tax and social contributions - and that does not even include other taxes and excise duties like the 25% VAT, the 9USD/gallon gas price (mostly tax) or the new car tax of something like 150-200%, property taxes, road taxes, vehicle taxes, alchold and tobacco taxes... So no, it is certainly not "free". (And yes, people in Scandinavia stating things are "free" is a rant-trigger for me.)
- lovskogen 13y ago
  The norm is 36%, if you earn a lot you'll get taxed more. But your income never has a say in you wanting to have a child or not.
- rnd33 13y ago
  And people in America stating that healthcare is not free is a rant-trigger for me. Everyone here knows that it's not "free" but subsidised by taxes. That's what "free" means when talking about healthcare, free at the point of service, and free as equally available to everyone. How else would it work? Are the doctors without pay and with no equipment?
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    It's an important point to make that even "free" healthcare is not actually free - the money has to come from somewhere, and most of it comes from forcefully confiscating it from people. Not only that, but if you're using money, it's much easier to use someone else's money instead of your own, you just won't be too careful about how you spend it. In fact, if you've got a "limitless" supply of other people's money, you just won't give a fuck about what you do with it. This is one reason why public healthcare (and public anything) turns to shit sooner or later.
    - xxpor 13y ago
      So I assume you don't buy insurance, for anything ever, correct?
alnafie 13y ago
Comparisons between countries like Norway and the US are a bit misguided IMO. It's hard to imagine that an oil rich country with a homogeneous society of 5 million people at the edge of the world can be fairly compared to the leader of the world's current Pax-Americana with a population of 300 million. Norway enjoys the benefits of being an almost-city-state as described in Antifragile by Nassim Taleb.

It's also free in Norway.

ghayes 13y ago

There is no free lunch?

petercooper 13y ago
There might be. The US government spends way more money per head on public healthcare than the UK (and only slightly less than Norway) and that's totally separate to all the private spending! http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthc... Procedures are so expensive, doctors so highly paid, and insurers so profitable that the US is essentially subsidizing all that while still not providing universal healthcare. In the UK we're both taxed less AND don't have to have private insurance due to the above. (It does have some downsides though, particularly in not being able to easily 'shop around' or get access to cutting edge/experimental medicine.. it's a bit one size fits all.)
- aestra 13y ago
  Nobody in the United States gets access to cutting edge/experimental medicine either. Insurances just won't pay for it. They say "too experimental" and "not medically nessessary" is a reason not to pay. I am currently in a 3rd level of appeal to get my insurance company to pay for my medication they claim is "too experimental" (it isn't by the way!!!)
- switch007 13y ago
  A top-level policy with Bupa/Pru will get you easy access to top hospitals in the UK (including London), for diagnostics at least. I just got a quote for £70/mo (it will almost double if you claim, however). EDIT: hm, not sure about 'experimental', but top quality/teaching hospitals anyway.

klausjensen 13y ago

It certainly is not. It is paid for by one of the highest tax rates in the world. I currently work in Norway and pay more than 50% in income tax and social contributions - and that does not even include other taxes and excise duties like the 25% VAT, the 9USD/gallon gas price (mostly tax) or the new car tax of something like 150-200%, property taxes, road taxes, vehicle taxes, alchold and tobacco taxes... So no, it is certainly not "free". (And yes, people in Scandinavia stating things are "free" is a rant-trigger for me.)

lovskogen 13y ago
The norm is 36%, if you earn a lot you'll get taxed more. But your income never has a say in you wanting to have a child or not.
rnd33 13y ago
And people in America stating that healthcare is not free is a rant-trigger for me. Everyone here knows that it's not "free" but subsidised by taxes. That's what "free" means when talking about healthcare, free at the point of service, and free as equally available to everyone. How else would it work? Are the doctors without pay and with no equipment?
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  It's an important point to make that even "free" healthcare is not actually free - the money has to come from somewhere, and most of it comes from forcefully confiscating it from people. Not only that, but if you're using money, it's much easier to use someone else's money instead of your own, you just won't be too careful about how you spend it. In fact, if you've got a "limitless" supply of other people's money, you just won't give a fuck about what you do with it. This is one reason why public healthcare (and public anything) turns to shit sooner or later.
  - xxpor 13y ago
    So I assume you don't buy insurance, for anything ever, correct?

alnafie 13y ago

Comparisons between countries like Norway and the US are a bit misguided IMO. It's hard to imagine that an oil rich country with a homogeneous society of 5 million people at the edge of the world can be fairly compared to the leader of the world's current Pax-Americana with a population of 300 million. Norway enjoys the benefits of being an almost-city-state as described in Antifragile by Nassim Taleb.