Jump to content

National Healthcare. What do you think of it?


Hawks

Recommended Posts

Its great over here in holland, when i watch house/grey's anatomy and that stuff i see american hospitals where ppls need to sign every 3 minutes and pay over 9000 dollars

2egffxf.png

[hide]

Felix, je moeder.

Je moeder felix

Je vader, felix.

Felix, je oma.

Felix, je ongelofelijk gave pwnaze avatar B)

Felix, je moeder.

[/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

EDIT: I think I'm reading your post wrong. Are those numbers purely based on government spending? And if so, what exactly is the country doing wrong?

 

 

 

Those numbers are based on overall health care spending; private and government.

 

 

 

The country is doing many things wrong:

 

 

 

1.) Not everyone is insured. This poses a problem because people who lack insurance and are sick but don't need dire care go to the emergency room. The ER is by far the biggest waste because of the excessive tests that people are given. For example, women complaining about cramps in their stomach could be pregnant. The ER will give them a pregnancy test by urine, costing several folds higher than a standard over the counter pregnancy test.

 

 

 

2.) More about the testing: doctors are over testing patients because they can. Costs have been rising at a much faster rate ever since technological advancements have been put in place in small doctors offices. I often hear about people complaining that Canadian doctors don't have access to MRI's as easily, but that's actually part of our problem. MRI's, while an important technological advancement, are not needed nearly as much as they're used.

 

 

 

See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04285.html

 

 

 

This doesn't happen in Europe and Canada nearly on the same level because...*cough* they "ration" care. It's not really rationing of care, but it's probably the main reason costs are spiraling out of control.

 

 

 

The reason I say this is not rationing is because it's a dumb term to use. For example, is it rationing if the US public schools don't offer to teach Japanese just because a few people want it be so? I don't think so. To same, just because some dolt wants a $500 pill, if there's no real medical benefit, the government isn't going to pay for it.

 

 

 

3.) The insurance companies; health care and malpractice. They raise their rates just because they can, they deny care when people need it most, and they flat out are not interested in your health. They're raising their rates and lowering the value of the care, even on people who have had no change in how they are in health.

 

 

 

They also own regional monopolies:

 

 

 

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... n_map.html

 

 

 

There's an interactive map where you can see the monopolies that are going on. Blue Cross Blue Shield in Montana, for example, has a 75% ownership of patients (Max Baucus' home state). BCBS has a 76% ownership in Minnesota.

 

 

 

4.) The drug companies charge 3-5 times more for the same drugs here that they do in Europe and Canada, and doctors are prescribing them out the yin yang. They also have more protection from competition here than they do there, although their countries set rates and directly negotiate prices. We don't allow that here, and it's why Medicare part D which was passed by George Bush was a giant giveaway to them. Of course...it seems Obama is doing something along the same lines by promising not to allow the government to directly negotiate prices, but in return they'll offer "80 billion in savings over 10 years, and promote his health care reform with $150 million in ads." Bush got nothing in return. Just to note the prospective here, $150 million in ads is more than John McCain spent during the Presidential election. The deal isn't set in stone, and a lot of people are backwalking it, but we'll see where it goes.

 

 

 

5.) Administrative costs. I don't think this is a huge deal, but it's pushing prices up a little bit. I think liberals tout this too much; it's really not going to bend the cost curve down.

 

 

 

6.) Employer based insurance doesn't allow you to keep your insurance if you lose/quit your job.

 

 

 

 

 

That's the gist of it, but I'd say the most important things to reform are the insurance companies, allow the government to negotiate prices, and have boards of doctors to 'ration' care (as the conservatives put it, even though it's really not rationing).

 

 

 

And about your warning of bankruptcy, if nothing is done, health care costs WILL bankrupt America. America never does anything when it comes to reform unless some tragedy happens. Sometimes I wish we let the banks fail because the Great Depression is the only reason we have social security. I fear that catastrophic changes in weather, food and such are the only things that will get America on the ball with climate change as well.

 

 

 

Hmmm, what else do I have. That's basically it. Oh, I'll explain the different types of insurance/health care models.

 

 

 

France: France has an employer-based system as well. Most people get their health care from their employer, but there's a difference. It's funded mostly through payroll and income taxes. Their funds go to a non-profit government run public insurance plan, where they negotiate prices with doctors directly. The government regulates drug and hospital prices so that they don't get out of control (aka: rationing).

 

 

 

Germany: Germany has en employer-based system. They have a public option that anyone can "buy" into, and they have private insurers. This is basically the model that Obama is proposing.

 

 

 

The Netherlands: Pretty much the same as Germany, with more regulation.

 

 

 

Canada: Canada has what is known as a single-payer system, where rather than paying for insurance, you just pay taxes. The taxes are funneled into a giant "single" fund, and contracts are sold to health care providers (much like Medicare in America).

 

 

 

Britain: Similar to Canada, but Britain's health care is actually "socialized medicine." You pay taxes, and your taxes are directly given to doctors and hospitals rather than you being insured. It's socialized because doctors and nurses are employed by the government, and the hospitals are government run. This is similar to the Veterans Hospitals in America.

 

 

 

Singapore: You are required by law to put a certain amount of your paycheck into a health fund account. They have public doctors and private. If you can't afford treatment beyond your health fund, the government subsidizes the rest. This model cannot work in other countries, mostly because of the culture and the amount of people/land size. Not to mention their government is very authoritarian.

 

 

 

Best model in my opinion? France. If I wanted the lowest cost, I'd pick Britain, but their quality can't match France's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm quite surprised there wasn't already a thread about this. It'd be interesting to find out what you think about a national healthcare system...

 

 

 

-Do you have one where you live?

 

-Have you had experience with it? (either with specialty/emergency care or standard care)

 

-Do you think the US should switch to it?

 

-Why/why not?

 

 

 

Some of the details in the plan that Congress is currently working through:

 

-You would go before a panel and they would decide if you needed this treatment or not.

 

-Obama has said that private insurance companies would be allowed to remain operating

 

-I'm unsure exactly about general care and how it would work. If you have details, please share.

 

 

 

I'll post back with my thoughts in a bit. Gonna try and find the bill online somewhere.

 

 

 

Here is a link to the United States National Health Care Act (or Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (H.R. 676)) in pdf form.

 

Full Bill: http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

 

Shortened version (30Pgs) http://www.pnhp.org/docs/nhi_bill_final1.pdf

 

 

 

Also the Wikipedia page on the bill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... h_Care_Act

 

 

 

I'm not sure how well a panel would work for healthcare claims. It sounds like unecessary beurocracy when people could just get a referral from their GP.

 

 

 

In Australia, we have a governmental healthcare system and private health insurance such as Medicare. I'm fine with this system as it allows a safety net for those who need medical treatment, but it also allows that extra safety net for those that pay for insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6.) Employer based insurance doesn't allow you to keep your insurance if you lose/quit your job.

 

 

 

That's the gist of it, but I'd say the most important things to reform are the insurance companies, allow the government to negotiate prices, and have boards of doctors to 'ration' care (as the conservatives put it, even though it's really not rationing).

 

 

 

Germany: Germany has en employer-based system. They have a public option that anyone can "buy" into, and they have private insurers. This is basically the model that Obama is proposing.

 

 

 

The Netherlands: Pretty much the same as Germany, with more regulation.

 

 

 

Canada: Canada has what is known as a single-payer system, where rather than paying for insurance, you just pay taxes. The taxes are funneled into a giant "single" fund, and contracts are sold to health care providers (much like Medicare in America).

 

 

 

Britain: Similar to Canada, but Britain's health care is actually "socialized medicine." You pay taxes, and your taxes are directly given to doctors and hospitals rather than you being insured. It's socialized because doctors and nurses are employed by the government, and the hospitals are government run. This is similar to the Veterans Hospitals in America.

 

 

 

 

As to #6. COBRA lets you have your insurance for UP TO 18 MONTHS after you've stopped working for your employer. If you get your insurance through your spouse and they die/divorce, you can have it for up to 18 months. You have to pay the whole premium (whereas if you were working for them they'd chip in a bit) but you're covered.

 

 

 

The reason there's so many uninsured is because a lot of people choose not to take coverage because they think it costs too much. It's their choice to be uninsured. My family of 4 pays $200 a month for our insurance. In our case it's more than worth it because I have type 1 diabetes and have an excessive amount of prescriptions and medical supplies that we could never pay for ourselves (one vial of Humalog insulin: $200. I go through at least 4 a month). If you want to work you can get a good job that will offer you good insurance at a reasonable price. Even if you choose not to take a general coverage plan you need to get (I can't remember the exact name) emergency insurance. If you get in a freak accident or have to stay in the hospital they will cover it. You might have to pay $100 once every year for a general physical but you're pretty good otherwise.

 

 

 

If you're disabled/retired there's Medicare. If you don't make much money, there's Medicaid. If you're a kid with a serious illness, there's Children's Special Health. You pay for both Medicaid and CSH on a sliding scale. If you can't afford to pay, you don't. If you lost your job there's COBRA and if you need to be insured and have a pre-existing condition, most states have a coverage provider that is required to take you (after a 60 day waiting period, but you get insurance).

 

 

 

As to Germany lets people buy into the system but still has private care and this is what Obama is proposing: He himself has said we will get rid of private healthcare. My previous post has the exact pieces of the bill that cover that little bit.

 

 

 

I really wish there was somebody in my position who lives in the UK or Canada. Has a chronic illness and needs special treatment. Because those people are being screwed over by the system there and we will be in the US if this is created here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how we're being screwed over.

 

 

 

My mum is on about 4 different types of pills for epilepsy, vertigo... all sorts of stuff. She gets MRI scans every few years. My dad happens to have a rare 2 in a million people disease, as well as issues with his stomach. I have asthma... and we all get treated. We all get the care that is needed in a reasonably decent enough time, the only difference is we don't have to pay.

 

 

 

Sure in the UK you're expected to pay for prescriptions but if you can't afford it you don't even need to pay for that! Paying for healthcare is fine if you're middle class and can afford insurance (or over here afford private healthcare like Bupa). But what if you're not wealthy enough? You just get screwed over by the system. There are a lot of things I don't like about England, but the one thing I like is that I can go and get decent healthcare even if I have just 10p to my name.

umilambdaberncgsig.jpg

I edit for the [Tip.It Times]. I rarely write in [My Blog]. I am an [Ex-Moderator].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As to #6. COBRA lets you have your insurance for UP TO 18 MONTHS after you've stopped working for your employer. If you get your insurance through your spouse and they die/divorce, you can have it for up to 18 months. You have to pay the whole premium (whereas if you were working for them they'd chip in a bit) but you're covered.

 

 

 

If it were as cut and dry as you were making it seem, the number of uninsured during this recession would not have gone up a large amount. Do you know why? Because people are losing their jobs.

 

 

 

One thing you forgot to mention about COBRA: it requires you to pay what your employer was paying. Under most insurance plans, your employer covers the bulk of the cost. Under COBRA, you pick up what your employer covered while you were working there.

 

 

 

Here's what COBRA does: it allows you to keep that plan for 18 months if you can pay what your employer pays. Your employer is NOT required to pay for your insurance at all. So rather than going on the individual market and finding a new plan, you can keep your same plan....IF you can afford it (which, most cannot).

 

 

 

Stop failing.

 

 

 

The reason there's so many uninsured is because a lot of people choose not to take coverage because they think it costs too much.

 

 

 

Yeah, and you know, it costs too much and they cannot afford it. Second, I don't care if they want it or not: it needs to be mandated because they're driving up costs for everyone else, including myself. Car insurance is mandated for this very reason. So should health insurance.

 

 

 

It's their choice to be uninsured. My family of 4 pays $200 a month for our insurance.

 

 

 

Lol, um, highly unlikely. What's your deductible? $10,000? One accident with a deductible like that and you'd be done. I highly doubt that your insurance policy is only $200 a month, especially if you're diabetic; not even government employees pay that low. Being a single guy in good health and I probably could get that....by myself, not a family of four. Methinks you're lying, or don't know what you're talking about...again.

 

 

 

I mean, the average family plan in America is roughly $11,000 a year, which sounds about right (our plan was about $900 a month when my father was a government contractor. Now that he works directly for the government, it's around $600 with a higher deductible).

 

 

 

However, it also depends where you live. Premiums in Wisconsin are likely to be lower than premiums in Montana.

 

 

 

If you want to work you can get a good job that will offer you good insurance at a reasonable price.

 

 

 

Ok, what about right now in a recession when no one is hiring anyone? What then?

 

 

 

Even if you choose not to take a general coverage plan you need to get (I can't remember the exact name) emergency insurance. If you get in a freak accident or have to stay in the hospital they will cover it. You might have to pay $100 once every year for a general physical but you're pretty good otherwise.

 

 

 

Typically emergency insurance covers around $1,000 a visit (very little), and allows a few visits per year (by a few, I mean 2-3).

 

 

 

If you're disabled/retired there's Medicare. If you don't make much money, there's Medicaid. If you're a kid with a serious illness, there's Children's Special Health. You pay for both Medicaid and CSH on a sliding scale. If you can't afford to pay, you don't. If you lost your job there's COBRA and if you need to be insured and have a pre-existing condition, most states have a coverage provider that is required to take you (after a 60 day waiting period, but you get insurance).

 

 

 

Well I've already dealt with COBRA, but let's go with Medicare. You say if you're old or disabled you can go on Medicare, but what you don't realize is that health costs are rising at such a fast pace that Medicare is going to break our budget. No, it's not pork and earmarks like John McCain harped on, it's Medicare and Medicaid that are going to break the budget. So until costs are brought under control, we ARE going to go bankrupt, quite literally. That's what you're not understanding. It's not just the uninsured, it's the insured who are undercovered, it's the insured who cannot afford to pay a 42% increase in their premiums (

), it's the cost of drugs, it's the dropping of coverage for people who thought they were insured. Do you get it now?

 

 

 

btw, a lot of people who want to be insured and can afford it cannot be insured because of pre-existing conditions.

 

 

 

As to Germany lets people buy into the system but still has private care and this is what Obama is proposing: He himself has said we will get rid of private healthcare. My previous post has the exact pieces of the bill that cover that little bit.

 

 

 

No he hasn't. Why do you have to lie?

 

 

 

I really wish there was somebody in my position who lives in the UK or Canada. Has a chronic illness and needs special treatment. Because those people are being screwed over by the system there and we will be in the US if this is created here.

 

 

 

Lol, god you're dense. I just posted several different types of health care systems, and you repeat the typical right wing talking points with no basis in reality. Canada and Britain's systems are completely different from one another, and you lump them into one thing. And then you talk bad about their systems without knowing anything you're talking about. Plenty of people from Canada and Britain are here, and all of them think you're nuts for saying the NHS will "screw you."

 

 

 

Not even Britain's conservative party wants to get rid of the NHS. David Cameron just issued many statements defending the NHS after all of the bad mouthing people in America have given it. The only member in their party who does is Daniel Hannan, and he is a crazy person. He's like Britain's Ron Paul. Their CP sent him to the EU to get him out of parliament because he was such a nuisance and crazed idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are pills. And kind of generic stuff with the asthma.

 

 

 

Postcode lotteries to get insulin pumps and testing supplies when they're proven clinically effective. That's what I'm talking about. Look at this: http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Documents/Re ... re2008.pdf They've spent at least five years fighting for better treatment for people with diabetes in the UK and it's still crappy.

 

 

 

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-forme ... 2916$6.htm

 

[hide=http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/diabetes-uk/make-diabetes-a-priority-$1232916$6.htm]

The UK has the highest number of children with diabetes in Europe with 20,000 children below 15 diagnosed. The UK also has the lowest number of children attaining good diabetes control.

 

 

 

All children and young people should have the right to receive the vital checks for good diabetes management, currently only 2.6 per cent do so (National Diabetes Audit).

 

 

 

There were over 3,000 emergency admissions of children with diabetes in England in 2007. Cuts in Diabetes Specialist Nurses have been shown to lead to increase emergency admissions. Specialist support for children must be properly resourced with maximum caseload of no more than 1:70 for Paediatric Diabetes Specialist Nurses as specified by the RCN.

 

 

 

Transition between paediatric and adult services should take place at the appropriate time and be negotiated with, and planned around, the needs of each individual young person.

 

 

 

Children and young people with diabetes must be supported to manage their diabetes at school. No child should be excluded from any aspect of school life including extra curricular activities.

 

 

 

Schools must ensure children with diabetes have a safe environment and are able to receive full access to medication and health monitoring in school. They should have trained staff to deal with emergencies and to assist with / administer insulin injections and do blood glucose tests if the child is not able to do those things for themselves. Children must also have access to food and hydration as required.

 

 

 

Children with long term conditions should be explicitly included in the five outcomes of Every Child Matters (be healthy; stay safe; enjoy and achieve; make a positive contribution; and achieve economic well-being). Ofsted should be required to inspect and monitor school support to children with long term conditions as part of inspecting these five outcomes.

[/hide]

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

[hide=The Truth about Health Care Reform][yt]U0XCl6OHgiM[/yt][/hide]

 

So he says. But look at the bill.

 

SEC. 104. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.

 

 

 

(a) In General- It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.

 

 

(B) Construction- Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits not covered by this Act, such as for cosmetic surgery or other services and items that are not medically necessary.

 

 

 

There is also a clause in one of these bills about how 'existing plans may be grandfathered in' but no new plans may be added or changed. He has said himself that they will phase out private insurance in ten years or so.

 

[hide=Proof.][yt]p-bY92mcOdk[/yt][/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you tell me what this is supposed to mean:

 

SEC. 104. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.

 

 

 

(a) In General- It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.

 

 

 

(B) Construction- Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits not covered by this Act, such as for cosmetic surgery or other services and items that are not medically necessary.

 

 

 

Hmm... The only thing I can think that that means is that you can't keep your insurance unless it covers something that the federal insurance doesn't. Under HR 676 you would be required to be covered by the insurance, like Social Security for lack of a better example. HR 3200 goes into detail about the hows and whats of coverage and how coverage will be distributed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let's put it this way; it will save more lives.

 

Not necessarily. Part of saving lives is timely care, right? Remember my MRI example from before? That's the kind of "timely care" sociallized health care has brought people in my country/province.

 

 

 

FYI: No hospital in the states can turn you away if you need life-saving medical care. There is legislation in place to prevent it. They may send you a bill afterward, but they will help you.

 

 

 

If getting your MRI was necessary to save your life, you would've been put at the front of the line. Non-emergency medical procedures take some time to be processed through, but its not a big deal unless you're really impatient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you tell me what this is supposed to mean:

 

SEC. 104. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.

 

 

 

(a) In General- It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.

 

 

 

(B) Construction- Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits not covered by this Act, such as for cosmetic surgery or other services and items that are not medically necessary.

 

 

 

Hmm... The only thing I can think that that means is that you can't keep your insurance unless it covers something that the federal insurance doesn't. Under HR 676 you would be required to be covered by the insurance, like Social Security for lack of a better example. HR 3200 goes into detail about the hows and whats of coverage and how coverage will be distributed.

 

 

 

Perhaps you forgot to read the link I posted?

 

 

 

We got several e-mails from readers asking if new health care legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives bans private health insurance for individuals. We tracked the statement back to its source, an editorial from Investor's Business Daily.

 

 

 

"It didn't take long to run into an 'uh-oh' moment when reading the House's 'health care for all Americans' bill," the editorial says. "Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal."

 

 

 

The editorial continues, "Under the Orwellian header of 'Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,' the 'Limitation On New Enrollment' section of the bill clearly states: 'Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day' of the year the legislation becomes law."

 

 

 

The editorial, published July 15, 2009, adds, "So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers."

 

 

 

Since then, the allegation about Page 16 has been repeated in many blogs and by at least one member of Congress.

 

 

 

We read the section of the bill to which Investor's Business Daily referred, as well as a summary of the legislation provided by the House Ways and Means committee. While the quotation is correct, it's taken out of context.

 

 

 

Individual private health insurance means coverage that someone buys on his or her own from a private company. In other words, it's for people who can't get coverage through work or some other group, and the rates tend to be much higher.

 

 

 

Under the House bill, companies that offer insurance to individuals will do it through an exchange, where the government sets minimum standards for coverage. The new regulations require insurance companies to accept people even if they have previously existing conditions and to provide a minimum level of benefits, among other things.

 

 

 

To be sure we were reading the bill correctly, we turned to an independent health care analyst at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. The foundation has analyzed the major health care proposals, including those of the Republicans, providing point-by-point analysis .

 

 

 

Jennifer Tolbert, the foundation's principal policy analyst, told us that Page 16 doesn't outlaw private insurance. "There will be individual policies available, but people will buy those policies through the national health insurance exchange," she said.

 

 

 

The House bill allows for existing policies to be grandfathered in, so that people who currently have individual health insurance policies will not lose coverage. The line the editorial refers to is a clause that says the health insurance companies cannot enroll new people into the old plans.

 

 

 

The IDB editorial has caught the attention of some of the bill's most direct supporters. Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who is guiding the legislation through Congress, wrote a letter to the publication saying the editorial was "factually incorrect and highly misleading."

 

 

 

The conservative Heritage Foundation also said the editorial misread the legislation, writing on its Foundry blog, "So IDB is wrong: individual health insurance will not be outlawed." Heritage believes that the new regulations will be so onerous as to drive private insurance out of business "which is effectively the same thing." But that is a substantially different argument than what the editorial said.

 

 

 

President Barack Obama had the chance to personally quash the IDB editorial himself when asked about it in a conference call with left-leaning bloggers. He said he wasn't familiar with the provision, before reiterating his general commitment to not forcing people out of health insurance that they like. (Impress your friends at parties by referring to the proper section on page 16 of the bill: It's Section 102.)

 

 

 

In response to Waxman's letter, Investor's Business Daily says it's sticking to its guns. In a follow-up editorial, it said that private insurance offered on the exchange will be too regulated to be considered true private insurance, hence its original editorial is correct that the bill bans private insurance. This seems like a creative way of covering up a factual error, though. Many private companies are highly regulated but are still considered to be private.

 

 

 

The original editorial said, "Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal." That's not what the legislation says. When the error was pointed out, a subsequent editorial said it was still true. For perpetuating misinformation and then standing by it in the face of facts, we rate the Investor's Business Daily editorial Pants on Fire!

 

 

 

Even the Heritage Foundation says you're lying. Now that's really wacky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to give up caring about what Americans do or think. But I'd like to say that most Brits like our national healthcare system, despite any adverts or comments about death panels you may have seen.

 

 

 

Here was a Have Your Say on the BBC website which asked the question: "Do you support the NHS"

 

 

 

Here are the 10 most recommended comments

 

 

 

 

The expression 'National Treasure' is bandied about all over the place these days, but the NHS is a true treasure which we should be taking great care of.

 

 

 

Imagine being seriously ill and not able to afford medical care.

 

 

 

Our present system has many problems and shortcomings, but life without the NHS is unthinkable.

 

 

 

 

 

What does it say about the mindset of Americans that they describe the NHS as 'evil'? And that it's perfectly OK to have 45 million Americans without any health insurance at all? Strange country.

 

 

 

 

 

I am often stunned by the level of ignorance the US has about anything none US but this time it beggers belief. Some of the comments from Palin etc would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. Saying it is evil is just nonsense, and people wanted her in power? What, cant she read a dictionary. I tell you what is evil. Allowing babies and young kids to die because their family cant afford to pay for it. Or for old people who have helped create the country being refused healthcare. Thats evil.

 

 

 

 

 

We pay for the NHS through our taxes so that EVERYONE has access to free healthcare.

 

Those who want more pay for private health plans, as in the US

 

 

 

What kind of country is happy to abandon citizens that are too poor to pay for a health plan to disease and injury. Oh yes, the US.

 

 

 

The NHS is flawed, but it is a fantastic if undervalued service. one for which I am grateful.

 

 

 

Sadly, there are a bunch of americans who don't want to pay a bit more tax for a service that could benefit millions

 

 

 

 

 

Free healthcare is what makes this a great country still, despite our multiple problems.

 

 

 

Free healthcare MUST continue.

 

 

 

Good luck to President Obama in his campaign.

 

 

 

 

 

Whilst we were on holiday in the USA, a few years ago, our young son had an accident and needed emergency treatment. It came as a real shock when our son, who was injured, bleeding and upset, wasn't even looked at until the staff had established how we intended to pay for his treatment. Even though we had travel insurance, if we hadn't had an acceptable credit card to pay at the time, I'm not sure what would have happened. It made us really appreciate the NHS!!

 

 

 

 

 

The NHS saved my mothers life with pioneering 'clot-buster' drugs last year, after she had a stroke - they also rehabilitated her to the point where, if you didn't know sh'ed had a stroke, you couldn't tell.

 

 

 

She was 67 at the time and has a pace maker.

 

 

 

So I know, personally, that the Republican Party are nasty, cynical liars.

 

 

 

I love the NHS.

 

 

 

 

 

Found this on the UN's World Health Organisation website.

 

 

 

'The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th'

 

 

 

Checking CIA world book, lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, Lower instances of Aids and lower deaths attributed to Aids.

 

 

 

Healthcare Top Trumps anyone?

 

 

 

 

 

Iasn't american politics a nasty, visious, childish business, where at least one of the parties has such little respect for the US public they tell them bare-faced lies about our NHS (information which a quick internet check would utterly disprove).

 

 

 

I offer the republican party the same salute my ancestors gave the French at Agincourt.

 

 

 

Viva the NHS

 

 

 

 

 

"I am ill but I can't afford to go to the doctor."

 

 

 

"I need an operation, but it would take me years to save up and in any case I can't work."

 

 

 

"How much is a tetanus injection? Oh, I had better just leave it, then."

 

 

 

 

 

 

The comments go on and on...

For it is the greyness of dusk that reigns.

The time when the living and the dead exist as one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion on national healthcare is simple. Hundreds, if not thousands of people die every month because they can't afford the doctor's bills. Around ten times as many are in serious condition for the same reason. This is absolutely unacceptable. I don't care how it's done, I want it fixed. At present, the best idea I can come up with is a combination of 1) a government-run healthcare plan designed to provide the best care possible for a reasonable price (to help keep the insurance companies from doing stupid [cabbage] like running up costs and dropping people), 2) regulating the prices of the drugs/treatments/etc. that costs so damn much nowadays (this is the second-biggest reason why we're in such a bad shape), and 3) develop better preventative care (this is the root cause of all the expense: people put off the once-every-6 months checkup until after it's too late and they're in the ER). Would it be rough? Hell yes it would be. Would it work? If it doesn't, then we might as well kiss our collective [wagon] goodbye.

You never know which rabbit hole you jump into will lead to Wonderland. - Ember3579

Aku Soku Zan. - Shinsengumi

You wanna mess with me or my friends? Pick your poison.

If you have any complaints about me, please refer to this link. Your problems are important to me.

Don't talk smack if you're not willing to say it to the person's face. On the same line, if you're not willing to back up your opinions no matter what, your opinion may as well be nonexistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO it's an incredibly basic part of being part of a community. If it's a financial issue, and it's people who are worrying about paying more taxes standing in the way of nationalised healthcare... jeez. It's nothing more than basic decency and selflessness, surely? If someone can't deal with having a small amount sliced off their wage to help those in need of medical care they don't deserve to be part of a society.

 

 

 

It seems like if we're missing anything in the West, it's a sense of civic duty. I'm not even talking about nationalised healthcare but it feels like everyone's just living for themselves, no obligations to anybody else...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It seems like if we're missing anything in the West, it's a sense of civic duty. I'm not even talking about nationalised healthcare but it feels like everyone's just living for themselves, no obligations to anybody else...

 

 

 

Welcome to the American Dream.

SWAG

 

Mayn U wanna be like me but U can't be me cuz U ain't got ma swagga on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It seems like if we're missing anything in the West, it's a sense of civic duty. I'm not even talking about nationalised healthcare but it feels like everyone's just living for themselves, no obligations to anybody else...

 

 

 

Welcome to the American Dream.

 

 

 

Well that's encouraging :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It seems like if we're missing anything in the West, it's a sense of civic duty. I'm not even talking about nationalised healthcare but it feels like everyone's just living for themselves, no obligations to anybody else...

 

 

 

Welcome to the American Dream.

 

 

 

Well that's encouraging :(

 

 

 

 

 

No, it's a misconception. People in general (not just Americans, every human) tend to grow self-centered if they're not faced point-blank with horrors beyond their normal imagination that are caused by their carelessness. It's nothing new; society has a very short memory as far as actions go. It's the main reason why it's said no society lasts forever. Unless if you can figure out some way to change this, you just have to live with it (or rather, fight against it). The sooner you realize this, the better off everyone will be.

You never know which rabbit hole you jump into will lead to Wonderland. - Ember3579

Aku Soku Zan. - Shinsengumi

You wanna mess with me or my friends? Pick your poison.

If you have any complaints about me, please refer to this link. Your problems are important to me.

Don't talk smack if you're not willing to say it to the person's face. On the same line, if you're not willing to back up your opinions no matter what, your opinion may as well be nonexistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a national healthcare system should be brought in. I don't see why as human beings, we must pay to stay alive. Sure, like the NHS over here it'll probably take months to get an operation, and the quality won't be outstanding. But it's free. Nobody should have to pay for good health.

 

 

 

Yeah, let's have Uncle Sam hand out health insurance to everyone and noone would ever have to pay anything :roll:

 

 

 

Money doesn't grow on trees. Neither does health care.

Ah, this reminds me about the noob on the Runescape forums who was upset with the quest "Cold War" because apparently his grandparents died in the war. :wall:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a national healthcare system should be brought in. I don't see why as human beings, we must pay to stay alive. Sure, like the NHS over here it'll probably take months to get an operation, and the quality won't be outstanding. But it's free. Nobody should have to pay for good health.

 

 

 

Yeah, let's have Uncle Sam hand out health insurance to everyone and noone would ever have to pay anything :roll:

 

 

 

Money doesn't grow on trees. Neither does health care.

 

No but if everyone paid for it then what's the problem? We pay through it through taxes, everyone pays a bit for the knowledge that I will get the help that I need if I fall ill and not worry about paying for it ect. There are posts far more detailed and clever than mine explaining how it could work in this thread.

umilambdaberncgsig.jpg

I edit for the [Tip.It Times]. I rarely write in [My Blog]. I am an [Ex-Moderator].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a national healthcare system should be brought in. I don't see why as human beings, we must pay to stay alive. Sure, like the NHS over here it'll probably take months to get an operation, and the quality won't be outstanding. But it's free. Nobody should have to pay for good health.

 

 

 

Yeah, let's have Uncle Sam hand out health insurance to everyone and noone would ever have to pay anything :roll:

 

 

 

Money doesn't grow on trees. Neither does health care.

 

No but if everyone paid for it then what's the problem? We pay through it through taxes, everyone pays a bit for the knowledge that I will get the help that I need if I fall ill and not worry about paying for it ect. There are posts far more detailed and clever than mine explaining how it could work in this thread.

 

 

 

NHS would badly affect private health care. I think something should be done so everyone has access to health care, but this isn't it.

Ah, this reminds me about the noob on the Runescape forums who was upset with the quest "Cold War" because apparently his grandparents died in the war. :wall:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a national healthcare system should be brought in. I don't see why as human beings, we must pay to stay alive. Sure, like the NHS over here it'll probably take months to get an operation, and the quality won't be outstanding. But it's free. Nobody should have to pay for good health.

 

 

 

Yeah, let's have Uncle Sam hand out health insurance to everyone and noone would ever have to pay anything :roll:

 

 

 

Money doesn't grow on trees. Neither does health care.

 

No but if everyone paid for it then what's the problem? We pay through it through taxes, everyone pays a bit for the knowledge that I will get the help that I need if I fall ill and not worry about paying for it ect. There are posts far more detailed and clever than mine explaining how it could work in this thread.

 

 

 

NHS would badly affect private health care. I think something should be done so everyone has access to health care, but this isn't it.

 

Not really, the UK has private health. The only difference is you're not forced into it. You can have private health care if you can afford it.

umilambdaberncgsig.jpg

I edit for the [Tip.It Times]. I rarely write in [My Blog]. I am an [Ex-Moderator].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a national healthcare system should be brought in. I don't see why as human beings, we must pay to stay alive. Sure, like the NHS over here it'll probably take months to get an operation, and the quality won't be outstanding. But it's free. Nobody should have to pay for good health.

 

 

 

Yeah, let's have Uncle Sam hand out health insurance to everyone and noone would ever have to pay anything :roll:

 

 

 

Money doesn't grow on trees. Neither does health care.

 

No but if everyone paid for it then what's the problem? We pay through it through taxes, everyone pays a bit for the knowledge that I will get the help that I need if I fall ill and not worry about paying for it ect. There are posts far more detailed and clever than mine explaining how it could work in this thread.

 

 

 

NHS would badly affect private health care. I think something should be done so everyone has access to health care, but this isn't it.

 

Oh cause they SO deserve the millions they get!

"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO it's an incredibly basic part of being part of a community. If it's a financial issue, and it's people who are worrying about paying more taxes standing in the way of nationalised healthcare... jeez. It's nothing more than basic decency and selflessness, surely? If someone can't deal with having a small amount sliced off their wage to help those in need of medical care they don't deserve to be part of a society.

 

 

 

It seems like if we're missing anything in the West, it's a sense of civic duty. I'm not even talking about nationalised healthcare but it feels like everyone's just living for themselves, no obligations to anybody else...

 

Where do you plan to get this cash from? The rich? They're already paying all the income taxes anyways (literally). Everyone else? That's counterproductive if the tax hike costs more individually than the insurance bills do, and it'd be a difficult law to pass.

 

 

 

And trust me, don't talk to the rich about civic duty. When you're paying over half your paycheck to cover for people who pay basically nothing in income taxes and barely any in state, and then get constantly harassed by those same people you're covering for "not caring about the weak and poor", the veins in the forehead begin to pop. By all means tell people in general that they don't have civic duty- by all means, I agree, but don't make the mistake I see made all the time by my peers and the liberal news of accusing the rich.

 

 

 

(I'm not saying you are, I'm just making sure you don't)

 

 

 

My opinion on national healthcare is simple. Hundreds, if not thousands of people die every month because they can't afford the doctor's bills. Around ten times as many are in serious condition for the same reason. This is absolutely unacceptable. I don't care how it's done, I want it fixed. At present, the best idea I can come up with is a combination of 1) a government-run healthcare plan designed to provide the best care possible for a reasonable price (to help keep the insurance companies from doing stupid [cabbage] like running up costs and dropping people), 2) regulating the prices of the drugs/treatments/etc. that costs so damn much nowadays (this is the second-biggest reason why we're in such a bad shape), and 3) develop better preventative care (this is the root cause of all the expense: people put off the once-every-6 months checkup until after it's too late and they're in the ER). Would it be rough? Hell yes it would be. Would it work? If it doesn't, then we might as well kiss our collective [wagon] goodbye.

 

Cute. Let me ring up the fairies and see if they can grant your wish.

 

 

 

Oh, and insurance companies aren't just running up costs 'cause they feel like it. Here's an excerpt from an article that explains a prime reason:

 

 

 

"Frivolous lawsuits. Under our current system, plaintiffs can win enormous judgments against doctors and hospitals on the basis of specious evidence. According to the consulting firm Towers Perrin, the tort system imposed $252 billion in costs on the U.S. economy in 2007.

 

 

 

These costs are imposed in three ways. The first is the cost doctors must pay for malpractice insurance, which is passed on to you whenever you visit the doctor. Obstetrician-gynecologists in New York pay about $200,000 a year in malpractice insurance premiums. For neurosurgeons, it's about $300,000.

 

 

 

The second is the cost of litigating medical tort claims, which in 2007 was $30.4 billion, a 100 percent increase from a decade before.

 

 

 

The third -- and most expensive -- is defensive medicine, ordering tests and procedures that aren't really needed to guard against a lawsuit. In a 2005 survey by the Journal of the American Medical Association, 93 percent of high-risk specialists in Pennsylvania admitted to the practice."

 

 

 

These costs would decline sharply if plaintiffs who file frivolous lawsuits were required to pay the legal costs of the innocent defendants, as is the practice in most of Europe. But though Democrats are eager to impose limits on how much doctors may earn, they are unwilling to impose limits on how much ambulance-chasing lawyers may earn, since trial lawyers are major contributors to Democratic candidates. "

 

http://www.articleintelligence.com/Art/ ... Kelly.html

 

 

 

 

 

NHS would badly affect private health care. I think something should be done so everyone has access to health care, but this isn't it.

 

Oh cause they SO deserve the millions they get!

 

.. are you saying doctors are overpayed?

[if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or

by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.]

 

Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And trust me, don't talk to the rich about civic duty. When you're paying over half your paycheck to cover for people who pay basically nothing in income taxes and barely any in state, and then get constantly harassed by those same people you're covering for "not caring about the weak and poor", the veins in the forehead begin to pop. By all means tell people in general that they don't have civic duty- by all means, I agree, but don't make the mistake I see made all the time by my peers and the liberal news of accusing the rich.

 

 

 

 

They're not paying over half of their paycheck because the rich make most of their money from capital gains; a 15% rate if they hold their shares for more than a year, or receive their dividends. The way the tax code is structured, the middle class bear most of the brunt because their income is so much lower with respect to the rich; ie, 28% of $80,000 is a lot more than 35% on $1,000,000. When you reach a certain point in wealth, you actually are taxed at a lower rate because of the cap on social security. Not to mention all of the tax breaks, write offs, deductions and advantages that comes from being rich and hiring accountants. Why do you think there are lawyers to interpret the tax code differently than other people?

 

 

 

The tax rate on paper might appear to be half in some states (California comes to mind), but the effective rate is far lower, and has been far lower ever since Ronald Reagan. Also note that Ronald Reagan is when we started our massive budget and trade deficits, something that's continued ever since. Come to think of it, everything seriously wrong with America started in 1981.

 

 

 

The tax code in America is an economic crisis in and of itself.

 

 

 

About tort reform: tort reform won't do anything. Many states have put limits on punitive damages, limited noneconomic damages, and modified the laws to a great extent. It's not enough for the AMA, and it never will be. Why? It doesn't attack the root of the problem, which is to get lawyers and courts out of the system completely, and adopt the Scandinavian no fault system.

 

 

 

Anyone can send in a claim of malpractice to the board of doctors who review the case. If there's malpractice, they award you a settlement. You're free to take it to court if you're unhappy with the settlement, but most people settle for a few reasons: a. it's more than they'd get from the court case and b. it's less of a hassle. It works similar to workers' compensation funds that many states run.

 

 

 

One thing that article doesn't cite is that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both sponsored legislation in 2006 that would implement a no fault system, and it didn't make it out of committee.

 

 

 

In any case, here's an article of my own:

 

 

 

Reporting from the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival, Kurt Andersen mentions this portion of Bill Clinton's speech:

 

 

 

He said the Democrats are wrong to deny that malpractice suits dont drive up medical costs.

 

 

 

No, they're not. Generally, this sort of high-minded concession to conservative talking points gets ignored, or argued via anecdote. Happily, we don't have to do that anymore. The latest issue of Health Affairs published a study assessing the cost of malpractice premiums, litigation, and payments, in addition to potential expenditures from so-called "defensive medicine". The verdict? This stuff doesn't matter. I'm going to bullet point through the study because, to be honest, this stuff pops up too often for the evidence against it to languish in policy journals.

 

 

 

Are More Malpractice Claims Filed in the US? Yes. The authors compared domestic suits with those in Canada, Australia and Britain (all countries with a similar, British-based legal system), and it turns out litigious Americans sue 50% more than Britain or Australia, and 350% more than Canada. The uncharitable explanation is our private system makes more mistakes, but let's ignore that for a second. Of our high rate of suits, 2/3rds are dropped, dismissed, or found for the defendant. Only 1/3rd of plaintiffs make anything. In Britain, however, 60% of suits are settled, while only 36% are dropped or found for the defense. So while we have more claims being filed, we have much fewer being won.

 

 

 

Are Claim Payments Higher in the US than Elsewhere? No. Our average payout is much less than Canada or the UK: we give $265,103 vs. their $309,417 and $411,171 respectively, putting us 14% below Canada and 26% behind the UK. Media attention and conservative rhetoric focus on the massive rewards, but they're as rare as they are large.

 

 

 

What Does Malpractice Cost? This is the big one. What does it add up to? The answer, which you wouldn't guess from Bush's policy papers or Clinton's speeches, is not very much. Legal costs are $27,000 per claim, settlements and judgments are $4.4 billion, and insurance is $700 million. The total cost of malpractice is thus 6.5 billion --.46% of health care costs, or less than one half of one percent. They're just not a significant factor in rising health prices, and those who say different are lying.

 

 

 

Defensive Medicine? We're not sure it exists, and in any case it's not measurable. The Congressional Budget Office did a study and concluded that the savings from less defensive medicine post-tort reform, if there were any, would be very small.

 

 

 

Have Claim Payments Been Growing More Rapidly in the US? No. This is fascinating. Payments stateside have been growing at a steady 5% over inflation. In other countries, however, they've been growing at 10-28%. Nevertheless, anecdotal evidence (and maybe statistical too, though I don't have it) says that malpractice insurance is growing rapidly in America. If so, that's the fault of our insurance companies and system, not consumers. British and Canadian physicians are protected from malpractice litigation risks by a single national organization with government subsidized premiums and no incentive to jack up prices on doctors. Australia has a private system more like ours, but the government subsidizes malpractice premiums and reinsures high-cost claims.

 

 

 

That last is more telling than any of the others: the way to insulate doctors from malpractice costs is to remove the profit incentive for insurers to hike premiums on them. Canada, Britain and Australia have all done so by bringing the government in and promising protection to doctors. Under their solutions, consumers and physicians were protected, insurance companies were the ones who ended up hurt.

 

 

 

Domestic proposals are a bit different: consumers will find their ability to file suit proscribed, doctors won't be protected from an insurance industry that's been hiking premiums far beyond the growth in payouts, but insurers will keep their clients, suffer no abrogation in their ability to make profit, and become protected by caps on jury awards. So in Canada, Britain, and Australia, they legislated to protect consumers and their doctors; in America, we're pushing for a solution that'd only protect insurance companies. And that, in his quest to seem reasonable and above politics, is what Bill Clinton is counseling Democrats to endorse. Ouch. Come 2007, his wife is gonna have some 'splaining to do.

 

 

 

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezra ... n_practice

 

 

 

And...here is an article that proves my point about offering compensation:

 

 

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD99IBA101

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.