Yes we do, and that's fantastic, because that's also paying for my sister's cancer treatment, my Mum's thyroid medication, the drugs Dad had to clear up a fungal infection in his toenails, the surgery my friend had to reassemble his ankle after he smashed it up slipping down a grassy slope...

Don’t know without my ~£3000 a year insurance I’ll have better luck with pubmed than with the NHS unless I’m bleeding out of 2 or more holes with one of them not being native to my body.

The only problem I have with it is that unlike say Germany I have no option to go completely private. I

> you pay for that room from your first paycheck to the last

No. In the UK you pay into a fund that pays for everyone, not just yourself.

National Insurance represents less than 20% of NHS funding. But I guess you're right if you consider general taxation as contributing into the HM Treasury fund.

> you pay for that room from your first paycheck to the last.

As you do in the US .. it's just that the section of taxes you pay for it is generally much cheaper than health insurance costs.

So do Americans. Public health spending per capita is higher in the US than it is in the UK.

> you pay for that doom from your first paycheck to the last

And you get it even if you have no pay cheque.

The American government spends more on healthcare than the UK government.

That feels like a worse situation: you pay for it all your adult life, but you have to pay again when you need it.

I'd expect anything dominated by skilled labor cost to be about twice as expensive in the US than in the UK... I mean, I don't know if doctor pay scales like SWE pay, but as far as I can tell, London pays software engineer types half of the US national average (which is rather less than what silicon valley pays.)

(of course, I think we'd be better off in the states if we expanded medicare to everyone, giving everyone a baseline level of insurance... but I'd also expect it to be more expensive here than in the UK, just 'cause the payscales here are... pretty different.)

Yes.

Here's the Agenda for Change pay scales, which seem relevant to a story about maternity care (which is usually going to be midwife led).

http://www.nhsemployers.org/your-workforce/pay-and-reward/ag...

Midwives are going to be band 5, so £22,128 to £28,746.

I think US midwives are getting about $100,000, so there's a considerable difference.

So basically the glorious NHS is possible because doctors aren’t paid a living wage? I seriously doubt one can afford to buy a house with that kind of income.

A SWE in London makes like the equivalent of like USD$65K or something. I think that wages are just much lower across the board for skilled labor once you leave the major cities in the USA.

(I'm curious how this shakes out on the low end, and if it's just that in the USA, skilled labor captures more of the total labor compensation than in the UK, 'cause I didn't think our per-capita gdp was that far off. In silicon valley, unskilled labor pays around USD$15/hr. the rest of the country it's closer to USD$8/hr. There are a lot of people who try to live on that. What would the equivalent be in London?)

And taxes are much higher, too, and goods are significantly more expensive as well.

We’re talking about skilled, professional labor specifically, and boy, professionals are getting screwed over there. Here in the US you can afford a decent lifestyle on a doctor or SWE salary even if your spouse doesn’t work. I don’t know what folks in eg London do. Shit’s crazy expensive in London.

But how are things different for the poor? The per capita gdp isn't as different as the salaries for skilled labor, so I wonder if the poor make more over there or if there is something I am missing.

Well, $22k in London is “the poor”.

Huh. In San Francisco, USD$30K/year puts you above the 20th percentile, below the 40th percentile for a household - I mean, I guess, sure, that seems poor but it's not uncommon. two people making USD$30K/yr would be getting close to the median.

(median household income in SF is USD$75K/yr. I don't see how you could live in SF on that money without serious rent control or owning your place, but fact is it's the median household income. Come to think of it, I know a fair number of people in that situation; making under $75K/yr and living in a rent-controlled place.)

Interestingly, median household income in london, as far as I can tell, is GBP40.000 which is like USD$55K - which isn't nearly as large a difference as I see in, say, SWE wages.

Just checking but you know a midwife isn't a doctor, right?

Sure. Still a professional though. Nurses make pretty good money in the US, too.

But you also do that in the US, you just don't benefit from it until you are 65.

The US does have socialised medicine: Medicare, and it costs as much as the health care systems of other countries, only it takes care of only a small part of the population, whereas in other countries it takes care of everybody.

Medicare costs the US about the same as the NHS costs the UK -- £1500 per citizen. That's not per medicare citizen, that's per citizen.

The NHS covers everyone (although if you want fancier healthcare you can pay and go private).