What proportion of a nation's wealth should be set aside for Health Care?

[sarjeetgill]

I have worked in the UK, Canada and the US. The

quality of care, subjectively, is proportional to

the amount of money spent.

Figures vary quite a bit, generally speaking UK spends about 8% of its GNP on Health Care and probably has the longest waiting lists and probably the poorest standard of care.

Canada spends a little more and has an intermediate level of care and waiting lists.

U.S. spends the most and has the highest standard of care and no waiting lists. BUT about half of

the population has no Health Care Insurance.

Comments please.

[fergus51]

I say spend as much as is necessary to keep a reasonably healthy population. And put money into prevention in order to save down the line. I ABSOLUTELY believe that access to basic health care should be a right for citizens of a wealthy country like the US and Canada.

[Dplear]

Half the population with no health insurance? I do not think so. Even at the high end of the scale the amt is 0nly 490 million people....that is only 1/8 of the US population (latest figures close to 300 million people) a far cry from the 1/2 you say.

As for the amt a nation should spend, I say that the market should determine the amt and not the government. Remember after all Health Care is a BUSINESS even if you do not like to think of it as that way. You get what you pay for. Always has been that way and always will be that way

[debbyed]

If more money was ear marked for prevention, can you imagine the decrease in the actual cost of health care.

[fiestynurse]

The quality of health care is not proportional to the amount of money spent. The old saying, "You get what you pay for," does not apply in this case. Despite frantic efforts to maintain our managed care system, America's patchwork of job-based medical benefits has imposed greater costs, while providing poorer quality care. Most managed care companies waste over 15% of each health care dollar on non-medical expenses such as marketing and advertising costs, paperwork, lobbying, excessive executive pay and profits to shareholders. Though US health expenditures far exceed those of any other western nation, according to the World Health Organization the US is ranked 37th among nations in the world in overall quality of health care a country provides its people. Among industrialized nations, the US is ranked 17th in infant mortality rates, often used to measure the health status of a nation. Life expectancy rates for both men and women, are lower in the US, than in Canada or the UK.

In addition, having over 44 million uninsured and millions of inadequately insured is very expensive. These costs are less tangible, but they are very real. They include the cost of treating more serious diseases since the uninsured are less likely to get regular check-ups; and economics costs--uninsured people with health problems are less likely to be energetic, efficient workers.

Lastly, Americans pay for so much extra insurance for injury and illness, such as auto insurance and worker's compensation insurance. Having one insurance pool would eliminate all this.

America's present health care system is failing and it will continue to get worse. People in Canada and the UK are basically satisfied with their current health care systems and I don't see them as failing any time soon.