Here is a question for those of you "Across the Pond" from the Yankee side. The question is for Canada too, for that matter. You may be aware that here in the US there is a VERY big deal in the news now about whether the Federal Government should nationalize health care. Currently, most people insure themselves & their families through their employer.

Last night on the news, an British gentleman was interviewed who is (or was) in Parliament or somehow involved in the politics of the British health care system (now I wish I had made note of his name). He said that you are not permitted to pay for ANY care not provided by the government lest you lose access to ALL government payment for care for that problem. This man stated that he believed that the majority of British people would pay for private health insurance if it were available and affordable.

So, my question is, is this true? Would you pay for private insurance if you could versus the government system? Here in the US, we hear horror stories on the news about the British and Canadian health care systems. I am making NO judgments, I am just curious to know if you would go private if you could as the gentleman suggested.

If you think your system works great, say that too. The news is always filtered by what point someone is trying to prove.

The so called British spokesman was almost certainly a scaremonger provided by American insurance companies scared of loosing their mega dollar profits. Private health insurance has been available here for years:rolleyes:

Guaranteed. They always select the spokesperson who can scare the public most toward their views. Right now the American Public is getting scaremongers on ALL sides. Some are praising the British & Canadian Systems, and some are blasting them. I would say more are blasting them, probably b/c horror stories are MUCH more interesting to watch on the news than what's working right. Stirs up more public emotion.

Hence my question. I am curious about how much truth is (or is not) there. I am always skeptical of the "experts". The question is always, how much is exaggerated and what did they leave out? So....

1. If the health care system tells you that they will not pay for a procedure and you pay out of pocket for it, will they refuse to pay for any further care for that problem? Was that truth? Was it exaggerated?

2. It was suggested that only the rich could afford to accept the options in #1, especially for a chronic problem, like heart disease or kidney failure with ongoing mega expenses into perpetuity.

3. Further, it was suggested that what private insurance there is there is too expensive for most, and if utilized to replace what the gov't will not pay for, brings us back to #1 and #2... which are impractical financial options for the Average Joe.

4. And the original question, Do you think most people are happy with the system as it is. He gave some kind of figure, like 80% would switch, but I don't remember it being substatiated by any research (the validity of which might be questionable anyway).

Actually, nationalizing healthcare is not and never has been on the table. Maybe health care reform wouldn't be so controversial if people took the time to understand the issue.

I'm old enough to remember when Medicare was first being introduced to the USA.

The insurance companies used the same scare tactics then.

Public healthcare is certainly not perfect, but its better than nothing, especially for those folks who currently have nothing.

So, my question is, is this true? Would you pay for private insurance if you could versus the government system? Here in the US, we hear horror stories on the news about the British and Canadian health care systems. I am making NO judgments, I am just curious to know if you would go private if you could as the gentleman suggested.

As Rich says, private healthcare is available here (although I don't think it's possible to opt out of funding the NHS and rely solely on private health care - but that's probably at least partly because there is no private emergency healthcare).

But no. I consider healthcare to be an 'infrastructure' thing - like education, police and fire services - and should always be available based on need, not ability to pay.
As a taxpayer, I'm perfectly happy to fund the system in a way that provides the same level of care to me and to people who cannot pay - in exactly the same way as I am happy for my taxes to fund the fire brigade whether or not my house burns down more or less frequently than someone else's - and in the same way that I'm happy for children of unemployed parents to be educated to the same standard as my children.

We all put in what we can and we all take out what we need - and if the shoe was on the other foot, I'd be glad I was provided for.

It's not that different from an insurance-based model, really, it's just that everyone has to participate - it's insurance at a corporate, rather than individual level - and that is perfectly acceptable to me.

The so called British spokesman was almost certainly a scaremonger provided by American insurance companies scared of loosing their mega dollar profits. Private health insurance has been available here for years:rolleyes:

Yes it has. But the fact remains that, if you live in the catchment area of a trust that does not provide a certain drug which is known to cure your ailment you are not allowed to purchase the drug privately and continue with your NHS treatment. As soon as you start down the road of paying to get yourself well again the NHS will penalise you for it. This has happened with the most horific consequences; people with cancer; Parkinsons and dementia to name but a few are left to die rather than be allowed to purchase life saving drugs that their trust does not authorise.

Would I switch to Private Health Insurance? At the drop of a hat! I've experienced both. A year ago I got sick, four months off work, several "exporatory operations" and numerous "failed medications" later they still don't have a diagnosis for me. Under private medical care I'd have been diagnosed within weeks and cured by now. I can't afford private medical care, so I've just given up. Point me in the direction of the nearest Shamen :eek:

That's kind of what I'm scared of too, if we switch to national health care, will I be able to get the treatment I need, or, will my grandparents in their 70s be able to get the treatment they need? Right now, I KNOW it's our choice, These things are always so convoluted, you think your getting one thing, when you failed to read the superfine print. or all of the attachments or ammendments. Later someone says, when we complain, "That's not what that sentence meant it really meant, blah blah blah." I kind of don't care about the money, I am a social services person so I don't mind making sure people have health care, especially children who are at no fault for not working etc. I am concerned about people not getting the care they need due to politics and beuracracy (not sure of the spelling).

the stance of the NHS has now changed -- if you opted for a treatment that is not on the NHS - thats fine and they will continue to treat you in conjuction with your topped up treatment - however they want disclaimers signed incase their treatments effects the paid treatment (which seems fair)

the stance of the NHS has now changed -- if you opted for a treatment that is not on the NHS - thats fine and they will continue to treat you in conjuction with your topped up treatment - however they want disclaimers signed incase their treatments effects the paid treatment (which seems fair)

It does, seems very fair. I wonder what the Government are up to? I'm always very wary of a leopard that tries to change it's spots, and a caring Government sets off all sorts of alarm bells :eek:

This whole conversation is completely beside the point. In the UK, the government employs doctors and owns hospitals. The government actually operates the health care system. This has never ever been proposed in the US. Ever. And I sincerely doubt that it ever would be. What is currently on the table are new regulations for the private insurance companies, and possibly a public INSURANCE option. Note: Public INSURANCE, not public care. No doctors will be employed by the government. No hospitals will be taken over by the government. This whole issue is a complete red herring. If you are curious about the British system, by all means, continue to investigate, but it has exactly zero bearing on the current health insurance reform going on in the US.

the stance of the NHS has now changed -- if you opted for a treatment that is not on the NHS - thats fine and they will continue to treat you in conjuction with your topped up treatment - however they want disclaimers signed incase their treatments effects the paid treatment (which seems fair)

This is an interesting post as I had not spotted this change, do you have a reference or can you suggest a search starting point?
Ta

Brian

One of the problems of private health provision in the UK is that it becomes prohibitely expensive as one ages, does that apply in the US?
What is the effect of long term illness?

I had my cataract ops done privately back in 1984 when the NHS would not touch me, I paid out of savings, but no way would I have been able to cope with my wife's 17 years of treatment for her cancer, one drug costs about £25,000 per year.

Brian

One of the problems of private health provision in the UK is that it becomes prohibitely expensive as one ages, does that apply in the US?
What is the effect of long term illness?

I had my cataract ops done privately back in 1984 when the NHS would not touch me, I paid out of savings, but no way would I have been able to cope with my wife's 17 years of treatment for her cancer, one drug costs about £25,000 per year.

Brian

Yes, we have the same problem here, until you get to 65 at which point medicare kicks in (government funded health care). If you are sick, forget about getting private insurance unless you work for a large employer that provides benefits. Otherwise, they will simply refuse to insure you because of your "preexisting condition".

Ofcourse, if you really do get sick, even if you have insurance you will get screwed because either 1)what you have won't be covered under your policy and you will have to pay out of pocket anyway 2)your out of pocket expenses will be so expensive that you can't afford them and you will go into bankruptcy 3)the insurance company will use something called recision to retroactively UN-insure you, which means they keep all of the premiums you have paid, and provide $0 towards your care or 4)your employer will fire you and you will lose your job AND your insurance at the same time. If you happen to escape all of the above, go play the lottery, you WIN!

I think that's just the same for all insurances. No matter what, they will find a reason not to pay out.

We are fortunate, from what I hear the level of care in Scotland and Wales is far better than in England, which is awful, we all pay the same amount, I think, in NI contributions, we should all be treated equally, but equally better please, not equally bad.

I had my cataract ops done privately back in 1984 when the NHS would not touch me, Brian
You should have asked for a sex changeBri, it's higher on the list than treating people with real ailments:mad:

A national health system - seems a good idea- but what if someone wanted a boob job - i think we can all agree that this should not be on the NHS unless due to health problems or reconstruction work ..

as to better care in scotland than england - it does depend upon where you live ..
let say you live in Brighton - there is a higher percentage of older people - thereforethe health services will be catered mor towards this age range- and if a remember correctly there was an issue in 2008 about a pregant woman who need specail treatment - but had to go to London as Brighton did have the faculities - which means there can never be a truely level health care system -

but as it goes the NHS is pretty good - i have never had any problems getting seen or having treatment - the buildings might be past there best - but good service (might not be the best - but value for money certainly ) - there are some who cannot get the treatments they want/need and this is a shame - but the tax payer will not pay for everything

Hi Gary
You did not respond to my post#12

Brian

What is the effect of long term illness?


Brian Bankruptcy or long-term debt for those without healthcare coverage...

- but the tax payer will not pay for everything

I really should stop watching the One show, it just gets me riled up.

They had a segment last night about taking migrant workers out into the country. Our government is paying to take migrant workers for a day out in the country. It costs, aparently, £250 per person! Yet, some NHS Trusts are struggling to offer patients the vital care they need.

I do understand budgeting, I understand that the government distributes its money between different funds (and some of the above scheme is funded by the National Lottery), but I don't understand why the government doesn't prioritise.

If you were running your own money, you'd have to make the decision of what to do with it, do I buy a new car or just empty the ash tray in this one to save money to buy my kids some new shoes. Why does the government not see it that way? Don't piss the money away on useless schemes for people who's only disability is that they work away from home, look after your own first!

One of the reforms being proposed but being fought fiercely by insurance companies is the "pre-existing condition" issue. At least as a U.S. Government contractor, I have a special provision that protects me from that one. Because contracting companies come and go but the employees stay at the same post across contract changes, there is a government regulation that says that if the person was insured under the previous contract, they must be insurable under the new contract despite pre-existing conditions.

But that doesn't exist in private industry in general. And that is what the insurance lobbyists are trying to keep out of the law.

I have my own agenda in this, but I doubt folks will like me for it. What I would want to see is that if you are in the USA illegally, you are not eligible for a dime of my tax money. If you legally register, even if you are indigent and completely on the dole, then OK, take the free ride. But abide by the immigration laws first. THEN we'll talk about health care. Yes, that is an unpopular view, but I get tired of supporting scofflaws who are draining the fund I will need myself in just a few years. Is that so hard to understand?

I have my own agenda in this, but I doubt folks will like me for it. What I would want to see is that if you are in the USA illegally, you are not eligible for a dime of my tax money. If you legally register, even if you are indigent and completely on the dole, then OK, take the free ride. But abide by the immigration laws first. THEN we'll talk about health care. Yes, that is an unpopular view, but I get tired of supporting scofflaws who are draining the fund I will need myself in just a few years. Is that so hard to understand?

No, not even remotely hard to understand. You get my vote and I've only been in America for six hours!!! (Not now, once, for breakfast...)

I have my own agenda in this, but I doubt folks will like me for it. What I would want to see is that if you are in the USA illegally, you are not eligible for a dime of my tax money. If you legally register, even if you are indigent and completely on the dole, then OK, take the free ride. But abide by the immigration laws first. THEN we'll talk about health care. Yes, that is an unpopular view, but I get tired of supporting scofflaws who are draining the fund I will need myself in just a few years. Is that so hard to understand?

I agree completely, it is an affront to all those who spend years to gain their citizenship legally. (I think particularly of a good friend of mine, who has worked very hard to gain her citizenship.)

Good discussion that I hope will continue. My informal observation is that the health care debate is full of gobbledygook.

1. Are we talking about a health care SYSTEM or health INSURANCE? The two are totally different.

2. Health insurance companies are out to make money, therefore it is in there best interest not to pay claims or to limit claims. At some point this will this manifests itself as a denial of service. Yet we are being told that a program run by the government will mean less health care. This does not compute.

3. We are told that a government run health care system will result in a massive bureaucracy. Well, the existing private health care system is already a massive bureaucracy. Every once in a while I see a statistic that XX% of a doctor's practice goes to administrative expenses associated with filing claims with the private insurers. In theory, sure a government run health program will be a "new" bureaucracy, but it will replace the private one and maybe even eliminate the time/expense/staffing related to the filing of claims. (PS: Malpractice insurance needs to be fixed too!)

4. One anti-government health care ad implies that if the government were allowed to run the health care system, that you could be denied some "important" health benefits. So what, we already have that with the private insurance companies. Before we can have a surgery, it has to be pre-approved and deemed medically necessary.

Well I can tell you that I am very greatful for living in Canada and having universal health care. No - it is not perfect - and with every scheme and system there will be those who abuse, cheat and defraud.
A lot of people never consider chronic illnesses when they debate the issue they are having in the USA and keep dragging Canada's system through the mud. If we did not have the Canadian system then we would have yet another burden upon our shoulders of deep debt. Being the principal caregiver in a family is very taxing on a person. It would be insurmountable having to do so and worry about fighting with an insurance company or begging around for more money for neccessary procedures or medications because an insurance company has decided it is not covered or extra or beyond the scope of coverage.
It pains me to hear of people having to go through this in so called civilized countries, perhaps it is time to put an end to the greed underlying these insurance scams which are being propped up and supported by governments. It is holding entire nations hostage.

I don't understand what
a) immigration issues
b)Canada's system
or
c)UK's system

have to do with the current debate. It makes me see red when people act as if these red herrings have ANYTHING whatsoever to do with fixing health insurance in this country. If you oppose the current plan, fine, but please please PLEASE have a REAL reason for doing so, not some irrelevant bull***.

It's all relevant. You can use Canada and the UK to see how other countries have fared under national health care. also immigration issues are fairly important. If my tax dollars are paying into it for the good of everyone in my nation, I want to know the scope of "everyone" and be able to put in my two cents about how I think "everyone" should be defined, which is where immigration comes in to the picture. These things may not need to be the whole of the discussion, but should certainly be considered. Also, the OP specifically asked for the UKers and the Canadians to give THEIR input from THEIR perspective on THEIR national health care systems. That point being made, please add something of value to the discussion instead of lambasting what has already been said. If you want to hear something more about it, try redirecting the conversation to see where you will get.

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]It's all relevant. You can use Canada and the UK to see how other countries have fared under national health care.

Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of what the current proposed plan actually entails? From your comment, I conclude you do not. If you actually care about this issue, and are not just trolling, then do about 4 and a half minutes of research on the issue before writing such blatantly false statements. If you can't be bothered to learn the very first thing about the proposed plan, why bother posting rubbish?

I don't see how my statements are not true, when the original OP asked for the specific opinions of people in those countries about their healthcare systems. No I have not researched it yet. I still have ideals, however, and still want to know how other countries who have national health care in place view it. There is nothing wrong with that. What are you opinions on it? What are some of the things you agree or disagree about? I don't even know what trolling means, so can you enlighten me on that as well?

Edit: How is my statement false, I am so confused. Are you saying that a person can't look at the UK or Canada as an example of National Health care?

I don't see how my statements are not true, when the original OP asked for the specific opinions of people in those countries about their healthcare systems. No I have not researched it yet. I still have ideals, however, and still want to know how other countries who have national health care in place view it. There is nothing wrong with that. What are you opinions on it? What are some of the things you agree or disagree about? I don't even know what trolling means, so can you enlighten me on that as well?

Your statements are wrong because you are implying that the current proposed plan will nationalize health care in this country. The Canadian and UK systems have no bearing because nobody is proposing doing anything remotely similar to those countries do in terms of their health care.

Edit: How is my statement false, I am so confused. Are you saying that a person can't look at the UK or Canada as an example of National Health care?

Sure, but what does national health care have to do with the currently proposed plan?

Your statements are wrong because you are implying that the current proposed plan will nationalize health care in this country. The Canadian and UK systems have no bearing because nobody is proposing doing anything remotely similar to those countries do in terms of their health care.

OK, But the fact remains that the OP asked for the opinions of the UK and Canada. And I do talk to people who have had the time to research and they all talk about it being a national system, so if my lingo is wrong, you know, at the very least, what I mean.

OK, But the fact remains that the OP asked for the opinions of the UK and Canada. And I do talk to people who have had the time to research and they all talk about it being a national system, so if my lingo is wrong, you know, at the very least, what I mean.

No, you specifically said that the UK and Canadian systems are relevant to evaluating the current reform proposal. They are not.

Sure, but what does national health care have to do with the currently proposed plan?

From the Original Post:

Here is a question for those of you "Across the Pond" from the Yankee side. The question is for Canada too, for that matter. You may be aware that here in the US there is a VERY big deal in the news now about whether the Federal Government should nationalize health care. Edit: I didn't finish this thought. The OP is asking a different question from the one you think it is.

Look I am sorry things have gotten so heated between you and I. I have no idea what the current plan proposes, I am jsut responding to other comments. This is certainly a place to air opinions, and I can say mine as unresearched of an opionion as it is. If you think this discussion should go in a different direction please, try to redirect it. What are some of the things you think about the proposed plan?

No, you specifically said that the UK and Canadian systems are relevant to evaluating the current reform proposal. They are not.

What if I want to take their examples into consideration, or some issues they've had into my opinions, how can you tell me that that is not relevant. Why don't I just think the way you do?

You may be aware that here in the US there is a VERY big deal in the news now about whether the Federal Government should nationalize health care.

This statement is patently false. The conversation cannot proceed from a false starting point.

What if I want to take their examples into consideration, or some issues they've had into my opinions, how can you tell me that that is not relevant. Why don't I just think the way you do?

Because they have a national health care system. We don't, and won't.

Well, Guess what the New York Times just posted on its webpage: High Fees Common in Medical Care, Survey Finds (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/health/policy/12insure.html)

Now thats breaking news:rolleyes:

I'm glad someone started this thread, as I was getting ready to start a similar one. Personally I feel like those who do not want health care reform often use fear tactics to scare everyday Americans into thinking the wildest things imaginable about the outcomes.

I can't tell you the number of times I have seen a connection between the current health care reform bill and Nazi Germany. How in the world could such a connection be made? You tell me as I am in utter disbelief.

Alisa, the comparison between what our country's healthcare system would be like post-proposed reform to Canada, UK, France, etc., has been made so many times that it is understandable that some people would be confused.

Since everyone is putting out their brief synopsis or opinion of what the effect of the proposal would be, I feel fully qualified to provide my own:

Public health care, post-proposed reform, would have an overall positive benefit for: the uninsured, the under-insured, those with expensive healthcare plans, those with pre-existing conditions.

Public health care, post-proposed reform, would have an overall neutral or negative effect for: those with premium employer-provided plans, those with very rare and expensive conditions.

This is all my opinion, but it is based on reading dozens of news stories from a variety of media outlets, listening to various politician's takes on the proposals, and the parts of the HR bill I actually read.

This statement is patently false. The conversation cannot proceed from a false starting point.

then redirect the discussion, why lambast it without contribution, there are obviously several Americans out there who think this, including me and the OP. If we're wrong, then please don't yell at us. contribute something to help us learn if you feel that strongly about.

yeah, except nobody is proposing public health CARE. The only thing on the table right now is insurance reform, and possibly a public insurance options. Thats it. No public care, no public doctors, no nationalized hospitals. No big scary death panels. To tell you the truth, even if this reform passes, I doubt that it will make much of a difference, but I support it anyway because you have to start somewhere.

then redirect the discussion, why lambast it without contribution, there are obviously several Americans out there who think this, including me and the OP.

Ok, lets talk about what kind of country explicitly allows poor people and minorities to die at higher rates and receive less and lower quality medical care than rich people and whites. Lets talk about what kind of country allows powerful private corporations to take billions in profits literally at the expense of its people's lives. Lets talk about people's willingness to buy into republican fear mongering about the proposed reform. Lets talk about the media's complicity in confusing people about what is truly on the table right now.

Because they have a national health care system. We don't, and won't.

It's still something to think about..... There always seems to be tricks up peoples sleeves. I don't have the energy to argue. Next time maybe you can state your opinion without yelling at us all for being wrong (maybe state your opinion not quite so vehemently) So we're not going to have a national health care system. It's going to be reformed. OK. I am still glad I had the opportunity to hear about Canada and the UK. And now Even through argument, I've learned something. Thanks;)

It's still something to think about..... There always seems to be tricks up peoples sleeves. I don't have the energy to argue. Next time maybe you can state your opinion without yelling at us all for being wrong (maybe state your opinion not quite so vehemently) So we're not going to have a national health care system. It's going to be reformed. OK. I am still glad I had the opportunity to hear about Canada and the UK. And now Even through argument, I've learned something. Thanks;)

I apologize if I came across too strongly. If you really are interested in other systems, this is most informative source I have found:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

I reacted strongly because most of the people who make those comparisons know exactly what they are doing - trying to scare people into not changing anything.

Ok, lets talk about what kind of country explicitly allows poor people and minorities to die at higher rates and receive less and lower quality medical care than rich people and whites. Lets talk about what kind of country allows powerful private corporations to take billions in profits literally at the expense of its people's lives. Lets talk about people's willingness to buy into republican fear mongering about the proposed reform. Lets talk about the media's complicity in confusing people about what is truly on the table right now.

I agree, our system is messed up, I don't really know the answer. I would like to find a way to give people health care and care in general in such a way that doesn't discourage working. So many of our systems do that, encourage people to not work (And this I know, I went to school for it.) I don't know about the Republican bit, I am Republican but have heard similar fears and misconceptions from Democratics and Independents too. Our media is alway shaky on the truth, and it is hard to find unbiased reports. I would love to read something that was unbiased to either side but just gave facts.

I apologize if I came across too strongly. If you really are interested in other systems, this is most informative source I have found:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

I reacted strongly because most of the people who make those comparisons know exactly what they are doing - trying to scare people into not changing anything.

I'll have to look at this when I get home from work tonight. Ireally shouldn't (although I have been) spending so much time looking at this site....

I agree, our system is messed up, I don't really know the answer. I would like to find a way to give people health care and care in general in such a way that doesn't discourage working. So many of our systems do that, encourage people to not work (And this I know, I went to school for it.) I don't know about the Republican bit, I am Republican but have heard similar fears and misconceptions from Democratics and Independents too. Our media is alway shaky on the truth, and it is hard to find unbiased reports. I would love to read something that was unbiased to either side but just gave facts.


Yep, the truth seems to be in short supply lately.

I don't understand what
a) immigration issues
b)Canada's system
or
c)UK's system

have to do with the current debate. It makes me see red when people act as if these red herrings have ANYTHING whatsoever to do with fixing health insurance in this country. If you oppose the current plan, fine, but please please PLEASE have a REAL reason for doing so, not some irrelevant bull***.

Here is a question for those of you "Across the Pond" from the Yankee side. The question is for Canada too, for that matter. You may be aware that here in the US there is a VERY big deal in the news now about whether the Federal Government should nationalize health care. Currently, most people insure themselves & their families through their employer.

Note the original question, I think that makes the uk system relevant to this debate, and the immigration situation, well that does have a knock on effect on any nationalised health system.

One good thing about the NHS is that they treat the condition ASAP. They do not have to decide what level of care you are entitled to according to your insurance cover.

In the USA I understand it to be true that the first question is "are you insured?" - in the UK it focuses on the problem, not the money.

I worked 37 years in the NHS and when it needs to be, it is bloody good.

Col

Private insurance in the UK does not cover emergency situations, you need to still go to the NHS A/E for that. Also, post operatively (after a private op) you still need to go back to the NHS if you develop a problem, private companies will not touch you. So effectively, the NHS picks up the pieces whilst the private companies cherry-pick the lucrative scheduled operations.

Col

Note the original question, I think that makes the uk system relevant to this debate, and the immigration situation, well that does have a knock on effect on any nationalised health system.

Ouma, I forgive you because you don't live here and can't be expected to know what is going on, but it is actually completely irrelevant. The OP made the statement that there is an uproar here over nationalizing the health care system. There is no such plan. There never has been. Republicans here just like to go around scaring people that the big bad government is going to take over their healthcare, even though there is absolutely zero basis for such a claim.

One good thing about the NHS is that they treat the condition ASAP. They do not have to decide what level of care you are entitled to according to your insurance cover.

In the USA I understand it to be true that the first question is "are you insured?" - in the UK it focuses on the problem, not the money.

I worked 37 years in the NHS and when it needs to be, it is bloody good.

Col

Actually, if you go to the emergency room here, they have to treat you no matter what, whether you can pay, whether you have insurance, or whether you don't. After they treat you, if you survive, then they ask for payment. If you can't pay, then it goes to collections - if the bill is big enough and you can't pay it, you end up going into bankruptcy (over half of all bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills). In the mean time, the hospital and/or the government has to cover the cost of your emergency room visit (indigent care funds, etc.). However, if you want to go to a doctors office to get preventative treatment or checkups, you have to pay first, and if you can't pay, you don't get treatment. What this means is that people who don't have insurance get no preventative care, they wait until it is really really bad and then go to the emergency room. This is the worst of all possible worlds because the treatment in the emergency room will cost easily 10 or 20 times as much as if they had gone to a regular doctor visit, and the taxpayer ends up picking up the tab anyway. The whole point of the current reform is to make regular, preventative treatment accessible and affordable to reduce overall spending on health care. But see, this is long and drawn out and complicated. Rather than taking the time to comprehend these issues, the republicans would rather go around telling everyone that Obama is a "socialist" and a "communist". ooooooh scary. :rolleyes:

Ouma, I forgive you because you don't live here and can't be expected to know what is going on, but it is actually completely irrelevant. The OP made the statement that there is an uproar here over nationalizing the health care system. There is no such plan. There never has been. Republicans here just like to go around scaring people that the big bad government is going to take over their healthcare, even though there is absolutely zero basis for such a claim.

Although, alot of the news headlines on the internet seem to suggest that there is an uproar, justified or not.

Rather than taking the time to comprehend these issues, the republicans would rather go around telling everyone that Obama is a "socialist" and a "communist". ooooooh scary. :rolleyes:

And why are they so scary? Would that be because they work so well?

While I'm a great fan of taking care of the poor and tending the sick, I am aware of the pitfalls of extreme socialism and communism, that is why Republicans are afraid of it, because, lets face it, once you start down that road it's all too easy to get carried away.

That said, I do believe that your new President has his head well and truly screwed on and that he will deliver for his people while keeping a close eye that things do not get out of hand. I don't think there's too much for the Americans to worry about.

And why are they so scary? Would that be because they work so well?

While I'm a great fan of taking care of the poor and tending the sick, I am aware of the pitfalls of extreme socialism and communism, that is why Republicans are afraid of it, because, lets face it, once you start down that road it's all too easy to get carried away.

That said, I do believe that your new President has his head well and truly screwed on and that he will deliver for his people while keeping a close eye that things do not get out of hand. I don't think there's too much for the Americans to worry about.

Because according to the protesters, socialism = hitler.
Unfortunately, Americans have never been known for their attention to detail or regard for truth.

Actually, if you go to the emergency room here, they have to treat you no matter what, whether you can pay, whether you have insurance, or whether you don't. After they treat you, if you survive, then they ask for payment. If you can't pay, then it goes to collections - if the bill is big enough and you can't pay it, you end up going into bankruptcy (over half of all bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills). In the mean time, the hospital and/or the government has to cover the cost of your emergency room visit (indigent care funds, etc.). However, if you want to go to a doctors office to get preventative treatment or checkups, you have to pay first, and if you can't pay, you don't get treatment. What this means is that people who don't have insurance get no preventative care, they wait until it is really really bad and then go to the emergency room. This is the worst of all possible worlds because the treatment in the emergency room will cost easily 10 or 20 times as much as if they had gone to a regular doctor visit, and the taxpayer ends up picking up the tab anyway. The whole point of the current reform is to make regular, preventative treatment accessible and affordable to reduce overall spending on health care. But see, this is long and drawn out and complicated. Rather than taking the time to comprehend these issues, the republicans would rather go around telling everyone that Obama is a "socialist" and a "communist". ooooooh scary. :rolleyes:


Are the kids going to lose the inheritance - if I have a heart attack in the street. Can I opt out of this? - ie under no circumsatnces treat me and send a bill?

Should I hope to have one at home and die to save the cost?

Are the kids going to lose the inheritance - if I have a heart attack in the street. Can I opt out of this? - ie under no circumsatnces treat me and send a bill?

Should I hope to have one at home and die to save the cost?

You have brought up one of the problems - if you are unconscious, any good samaritan will call you an ambulance which will take you to the emergency room. You could wake up thousands of dollars in debt, and there is nothing you can do about it. Yes, the kids are going to lose the inheritance. No you can't opt out of it. Even if you are conscious when you go in for treatment, there is no way to find out in advance how much it is going to cost. If you ask, they will probably tell you they don't know, or they might say a number. In any case, they could tell you $5000 and then you get a bill for $25000.

In case anyone is interested . . .
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

You have brought up one of the problems - if you are unconscious, any good samaritan will call you an ambulance which will take you to the emergency room. You could wake up thousands of dollars in debt, and there is nothing you can do about it. Yes, the kids are going to lose the inheritance. No you can't opt out of it. Even if you are conscious when you go in for treatment, there is no way to find out in advance how much it is going to cost. If you ask, they will probably tell you they don't know, or they might say a number. In any case, they could tell you $5000 and then you get a bill for $25000.

We dont want that here! Sounds horrible.

Because according to the protesters, socialism = hitler.

Haha. I know exactly what you mean. I've had conversations with co-workers who say "We don't want a socialistic country", then I ask them what socialism means and they can't explain it.

And I can't tell you how many people I have heard try to compare what the Obama Administration is trying to do to the novel 1984. I try to talk rationally with everyone, but sometimes people are so crazy I can't help but laugh at them.

I try to talk rationally with everyone, but sometimes people are so crazy I can't help but laugh at them.

Or cry, as the case may be.

There is no Billing or Collection department in Canadian hospitals. whether you survive the medical care or not. And you do not have to slide the Doctor any money just to have intelligence and forethought of preventative treatment or checkups.

Actually, if you go to the emergency room here, they have to treat you no matter what, whether you can pay, whether you have insurance, or whether you don't. After they treat you, if you survive, then they ask for payment. If you can't pay, then it goes to collections - if the bill is big enough and you can't pay it, you end up going into bankruptcy (over half of all bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills). In the mean time, the hospital and/or the government has to cover the cost of your emergency room visit (indigent care funds, etc.). However, if you want to go to a doctors office to get preventative treatment or checkups, you have to pay first, and if you can't pay, you don't get treatment. What this means is that people who don't have insurance get no preventative care, they wait until it is really really bad and then go to the emergency room. This is the worst of all possible worlds because the treatment in the emergency room will cost easily 10 or 20 times as much as if they had gone to a regular doctor visit, and the taxpayer ends up picking up the tab anyway. The whole point of the current reform is to make regular, preventative treatment accessible and affordable to reduce overall spending on health care. But see, this is long and drawn out and complicated. Rather than taking the time to comprehend these issues, the republicans would rather go around telling everyone that Obama is a "socialist" and a "communist". ooooooh scary. :rolleyes:

I would not switch to private medical insurance - as demonstated in the US this makes you exceedingly fat.

(In response to a BBC news piece this morning where an American didnt want a health service, cos of the state of British teeth.)

(In response to a BBC news piece this morning where an American didnt want a health service, cos of the state of British teeth.)
That's because American marines are being taught to defeat the enemy by simply dazzling them with a friendly smile

That's because American marines are being taught to defeat the enemy by simply dazzling them with a friendly smile

Another American said that all the British spoke badly of the NHS and wouldn't recommend it. When asked who these British were - it turned out it was likely one Tory MEP who has been doing the rounds on US telly.

I hope he does the rounds with the view that the HNS should go on British telly next time hes up for election!

Ok, lets talk about what kind of country explicitly allows poor people and minorities to die at higher rates and receive less and lower quality medical care than rich people and whites. Lets talk about what kind of country allows powerful private corporations to take billions in profits literally at the expense of its people's lives. Lets talk about people's willingness to buy into republican fear mongering about the proposed reform. Lets talk about the media's complicity in confusing people about what is truly on the table right now.

I would be interested in what you see as the differance between whats propsosed in the US and what we have herein the UK.

AS a follow on from post 66

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8200817.stm

Another American said that all the British spoke badly of the NHS and wouldn't recommend it. When asked who these British were - it turned out it was likely one Tory MEP who has been doing the rounds on US telly.Quite possibly a lot of Brits do complain about the NHS - complaining is part of our national culture.

When things fall short of our expectations, we complain (although seldom to the right person)

When things meet or exceed our expectations, we warily, silently accept them.

I have only seen a private GP - once in the last 20 years. I waited 3 hrs past my appointment time.

I have only been asked once, if I would like to go private in this country - ten ish years ago with my dentist. I said no.

He continued to treat me on the NHS.

Now I have a differant dentist (last 3 years or so) in the same practice. I have heard that many dentists are returning to the NHS?


The NHS can be infuriating - especially the postcode lottery - but its basic ecomomics. The rules of basic ecomomics dont change if you go private, I think its another falacy being touted around that suddenly if your are privately insured limited resources are somehow limitless.

Now I have a differant dentist (last 3 years or so) in the same practice. I have heard that many dentists are returning to the NHS?This appears to be true in my area - however, NHS dentistry can still turn expensive if you need multiple treatments.

Not sure what happens if you're not exempt from charging (i.e. not on benefits or a student, etc), but can't pay.

This appears to be true in my area - however, NHS dentistry can still turn expensive if you need multiple treatments.

Not sure what happens if you're not exempt from charging (i.e. not on benefits or a student, etc), but can't pay.

Your teeth rot and fall out. Worst case scenario, you end up with septicemia from the poison produced by the rotting tooth.

Alternatively, you can go to your local dental hospital where they will treat you while teaching students...

This appears to be true in my area - however, NHS dentistry can still turn expensive if you need multiple treatments.

Not sure what happens if you're not exempt from charging (i.e. not on benefits or a student, etc), but can't pay.

I'm not too sure on this one - I brush my teeth, and presumably am drinking flouride water.

Just to have a blanced view - bbc - NHS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8200817.stm

Well said John - its like the battle of britain all over again.

In all seriousness - I reckon at least ( 95% wouldn't surprise me) 75% of the UK would be wholeheartedly behind the NHS, rather than a private healthcare option.

Doesn't make it right, but it may correct a few media myths in the states.

Are you allowed free access to the internet and news media - or is it like China over there.

I would be interested in what you see as the differance between whats propsosed in the US and what we have herein the UK.

The US plan does NOT propose to:
-have the government own or operate hospitals or clinics
-have the government employ doctors, nurses, or other health care professionals

The US plan DOES propose to:
-stop the private insurers from denying coverage to anyone for "pre-existing conditions"

-create a publicly operated INSURANCE plan that people may buy into if they prefer what that plan offers as opposed to what they can get with a private plan

I honestly don't see even the slightest resemblance between what the UK has and what the US proposes to have.

The US plan does NOT propose to:
-have the government own or operate hospitals or clinics
-have the government employ doctors, nurses, or other health care professionals

The US plan DOES propose to:
-stop the private insurers from denying coverage to anyone for "pre-existing conditions"

-create a publicly operated INSURANCE plan that people may buy into if they prefer what that plan offers as opposed to what they can get with a private plan

I honestly don't see even the slightest resemblance between what the UK has and what the US proposes to have.


Cheers Alisa - hows that actually differant though, to those who pay for and use it?

Would you personnally like the UK system - and why?

I'm not questioning you to see if you are right or wrong - just interested.

Well, in America we have a culture that fears government involvement and control, particularly among the older population. So if you tell a large gathering of people that the proposed health care reform is similar to the UK's, the first thing they will think of is that the government will control everything, government decides who lives and dies, etc.

I personally would be all for a system like the UK has, as time has shown again and again that the UK system ranks better for the average person than does the US system. In the US if you're rich, you get the best of care. If you are not, you get substandard care. I'd be willing to pay more in taxes to provide standard care for everyone.

Well, in America we have a culture that fears government involvement and control, particularly among the older population. So if you tell a large gathering of people that the proposed health care reform is similar to the UK's, the first thing they will think of is that the government will control everything, government decides who lives and dies, etc.

I personally would be all for a system like the UK has, as time has shown again and again that the UK system ranks better for the average person than does the US system. In the US if you're rich, you get the best of care. If you are not, you get substandard care. I'd be willing to pay more in taxes to provide standard care for everyone.

The stats I have seen ranks our health as very poor compatitively.

But then we spend little on it, and I think the cultural stiff upper lip may be largely to blame as well as prevalence of smoking and drinking, and eating deep fried mars bars.


I'd rather a govermantt controlled if I lived or died rather than a private health care scheme.

Most negatives you hear on governments anywhere is actually they were a front to some private company and Bush was on the borad or Berlusconi or Blair was doing a lecture tour or whatever - ie profits schewed what was right.

To ingrain profit into the heathcare of a nation seems perverse to me. As does the NHS to huge swathes of the US presumably.

Cheers Alisa - hows that actually differant though, to those who pay for and use it?
Is that a sincere question? Just interested.

Would you personnally like the UK system - and why?

I'm not questioning you to see if you are right or wrong - just interested.

I think the UK system has a lot of benefits, namely, no-one is denied basic medical care due to inability to pay. I also think it is not a terribly efficient system. If you were starting with a clean slate, I think there are many more cost effective ways to accomplish universal coverage. Unfortunately, we never get to start with a clean slate. Where we are is a product of where we started from.

Is the UK system better than the US system? In terms of equality in access to care, yes. In terms of total cost, yes. In terms of overall outcomes, yes. These are all quantifiable measures of a health care system, and UK comes out ahead on each. Where the US system comes out ahead is in medical innovation and access to exceptional care for a price. In other words, if you are stinking rich, you can still get better medical care in the US than in the UK.

In my opinion, it is more beneficial to a country both in terms of societal value and economic value to have equality of access to basic care than to have access to exceptional care for a few. Not everyone agrees with that values assessment, which is fine.

The stats I have seen ranks our health as very poor compatitively.



Source please.

Is that a sincere question? Just interested.


I think the UK system has a lot of benefits, namely, no-one is denied basic medical care due to inability to pay. I also think it is not a terribly efficient system. If you were starting with a clean slate, I think there are many more cost effective ways to accomplish universal coverage. Unfortunately, we never get to start with a clean slate. Where we are is a product of where we started from.

Is the UK system better than the US system? In terms of equality in access to care, yes. In terms of total cost, yes. In terms of overall outcomes, yes. These are all quantifiable measures of a health care system, and UK comes out ahead on each. Where the US system comes out ahead is in medical innovation and access to exceptional care for a price. In other words, if you are stinking rich, you can still get better medical care in the US than in the UK.

In my opinion, it is more beneficial to a country both in terms of societal value and economic value to have equality of access to basic care than to have access to exceptional care for a few. Not everyone agrees with that values assessment, which is fine.

Absolutely - I dont know the differance exactly - ie you can be treated on the UK NHS abroad (i e not employed by the government here directly), or by private hospitals.

The stinking rich here use the NHS not entirely obviuosly - many have now to use private stinking rich or not. But that Cameron, leader of the Tories, gone to Eton, married into the family that owned Buckingham Palace, I think had his ill son treated on the NHS in this country I think says, what all social groups in the UK have to say on the NHS.

Its not perfect by any means.

I think yes US leads the way on may things, supposedly so does Cuba, but they have been embargoed.

Anyway off to drink 15 pints and smoke 30 cigs. Have to pay for the HNS some how!

Off the top of my head/google so you may be able to pick holes in it


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html

Off the top of my head/google so you may be able to pick holes in it


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html

Can't argue with that. But you have better life expectancy than we do overall. You also have lower infant mortality rates. (http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20081015/infant-mortality-us-ranks-29th, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy). As I said before though, I think comparing the US and UK systems is irrelevant in terms of determining whether or not the current US reform bill should be passed, since passing the bill would not result in the US system becoming anymore like the UK system than it was before.

As far as the difference in what the patient experiences as you asked earlier, this blogger: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/ has been compiling stories from people in the US about their experiences getting (or trying to get) health care in a series called "The View from your Sickbed". Pretty interesting stuff.

In other words, if you are stinking rich, you can still get better medical care in the US than in the UK.

In my opinion, it is more beneficial to a country both in terms of societal value and economic value to have equality of access to basic care than to have access to exceptional care for a few. Not everyone agrees with that values assessment, which is fine.

People who have the financial means will ALWAYS get superior and preferred care and attention irregardless of where they reside. And if it is not available in their own country they have the means to go to where it is available.

wrong thread

wrong thread

I was just about to tell you that! :-)

What would be the reasoning behind a vote against Obama's health reforms -asides from the Stephen Hawkings would never have lived, misinformation?

What would be the reasoning behind a vote against Obama's health reforms -asides from the Stephen Hawkings would never have lived, misinformation?
Racism
Ignorance
Stupidity
Greed
Selfishness
Republicanism