I found his position weak.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Healthcare
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
Well at least he was smart enough to know how to take the dran drug! Bill Clinton smoked pot but wasnt smart enough to know he was supposed to inhale!. I bet you believed him when he said that to LOL.
Jim
Jim,
You're a couple weeks behind. Maybe it takes a while for the Internets to get to Thailand.
Try to keep up please.
IMSA
Well that a was waste of 3 minutes and 49 seconds of my life I'll never get back again.
Let me ask this, if our current medical system is as great as many here would like to lead us believe, then why aren't any of the modern industrial countries that have a socialized medical system rushing to scrap their system and adopt our ‘for profit’ medical system?
And to the members of the board from Canada and Great Britain adding opinions; I’m curious to know how many people you know that can’t get medical coverage? Do you have to tell your doctor you can’t get some recommended procedures done, additional treatments done, or have to decline some prescription drugs because you just can’t afford the cost? How many people do you know who can't get health insurance and have had to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills? How many people do you know with medical insurance that have had to declare bankruptcy because their insurance didn’t cover the procedures needed? How many people do you know that have died waiting for their insurance company to approve a procedure? How many people do you know that have died because they either couldn't afford medical care or couldn't afford prescribed prescription drugs?
How long are the lines for people waiting for medical treatment at clinics? At hospitals? When you go in for treatment, are you first asked “who’s your insurance company?”
I have to ask because I’m getting conflicting information. Are you for the most part happy with the medical treatment being offered in your respective countries? Some members posting here seem to think the socialized medical systems in Canadian and Great Britain are inferior in many ways to what’s offered in the U.S. What are your honest opinions?
Just curious,
By the way, for the shallow minded that will reply "anyone can walk into the emergency ward of a hospital for treatment and not get turned down", you know they do give you a bill for treatment done and they go after you if you don't or can't pay your bill.
IMSA
Your life is probably a series of wasted 3 minutes and 49 seconds! And they don't bill illegal aliens. Tucson Heart Hospital ate $12,500,000 in free services last year. Socialized medicine countries have a higher death rate for all forms of cancer than the US.
Your life is probably a series of wasted 3 minutes and 49 seconds! And they don't bill illegal aliens. Tucson Heart Hospital ate $12,500,000 in free services last year. Socialized medicine countries have a higher death rate for all forms of cancer than the US.
My life would be if I have to keep watching the crap you throw against the wall just to see if it sticks. And since when did Tucson become part of Canada or Great Britain? I was looking for some opinions from people living with socialized medicine.
"Socialized medicine countries have a higher death rate for all forms of cancer than the US"
Your source please.
IMSA
The NHS was started because of an ideal that good healthcare should be available to all, regardless of wealth.
For many of us, it is difficult to imagine life before the NHS, when healthcare was unreliable and treatment had to be paid for.
In the same way, it was hard for people in 1948 to see what a national health service was going to mean for them and for future generations. It was the first time, anywhere in the world, that completely free healthcare was made available on the basis of citizenship and need rather than the payment of fees or insurance premiums.
The man who brought the health service into being was Aneurin Bevan, a Welsh miner who became a Labour politician. Nye Bevan was handed the responsibility for healthcare and housing by the new prime minister, Clement Attlee, in the first post-Second World War government.
Bevan fought passionately for the NHS. In parliament on February 9 1948 he urged ministers and doctors to “take pride in the fact that, despite our financial and economic anxieties, we are still able to do the most civilised thing in the world: put the welfare of the sick in front of every other consideration”.
On July 5 of that year, Bevan got his wish and our healthcare changed forever.
This is why despite it's faults, the majority of people in the UK including the leaders of all the main political parties, left right and middle, support the NHS .
Regards
Nick
For many of us, it is difficult to imagine life before the NHS, when healthcare was unreliable and treatment had to be paid for.
In the same way, it was hard for people in 1948 to see what a national health service was going to mean for them and for future generations. It was the first time, anywhere in the world, that completely free healthcare was made available on the basis of citizenship and need rather than the payment of fees or insurance premiums.
The man who brought the health service into being was Aneurin Bevan, a Welsh miner who became a Labour politician. Nye Bevan was handed the responsibility for healthcare and housing by the new prime minister, Clement Attlee, in the first post-Second World War government.
Bevan fought passionately for the NHS. In parliament on February 9 1948 he urged ministers and doctors to “take pride in the fact that, despite our financial and economic anxieties, we are still able to do the most civilised thing in the world: put the welfare of the sick in front of every other consideration”.
On July 5 of that year, Bevan got his wish and our healthcare changed forever.
This is why despite it's faults, the majority of people in the UK including the leaders of all the main political parties, left right and middle, support the NHS .
Regards
Nick
Well, here are a few responses:
- yes, the NHS may not prescribe the latest, most effective (read expensive) drug for a condition. Yes the NHS may not give you what you want as the most effective medication
- yes, an Osteopath friend of mine said that the UK is looking to reform the NHS with an Australian type system
- a GP friend said that the NHS is good with emergencies, but cronic illnesses are a problem, and one has to wait along time for say a hip replacement
- you folks proposing a U.S. NHS always talk about people going bankrupt even with insurance. Do you know anyone who has been in this position, and what kind of insurance do they have? Is it some inexpensive cover?
- How many people have died in the US because insurance companies have not approved procedures? I can't imagine many, can you quote an accurate figure?
- How many people have died because because they couldn't afford cover or drugs? Any real numbers here?
Actually, I have experience with the UK, Italy (both NHS type systems), Germany, Belgium, employer and private sponsored U.S. health cover.
The best system is the German system, where:
- it is against the law to not be insured once you turn 18
- you carry your insurance carrier until retirment when a Medicare style system is in place
- you split your coverage 50/50 with your employer
- you take your coverage with you when you change jobs
- the hospitals and doctors are private, and invoice the insurance companies
- the hospitals are well run, clean and modestly priced compared to the USA
- insurance is not cheap and gets more expensive when the insured get older
- doctors can do far more procedures in office than they can in the UK
With nationalized systems, yes, you can see the doctor. My local GP surgery is virtually empty, and when asked why, he said: "everyone just goes to the emergency room, and we just monitor the patients."
I don't know who you are Mr. IMSA, and would apprciate knowing your name, and what you do for a living.
Right now in the USA, you pay about 7.5% employee and employer contribution. That gives a decent Social Security payment when you retire and a $400 / week unemployment payment for 12 months.
Here in the UK, I pay 8,5% and my employer pays 12,5% of my gross for National Insurance which covers a £12/day unemployment payment for 6 months, and a max of £150/week max payment (after 40 years of service). That's why 15 years ago, private pension plans were started. Guess what, the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Excheker, decided to tax these funds to pay for his programs. Guess what, these private funds have not performed well, and the UK is in deep financial doo doo.
The NHS cost is 8% of GDP, which equates to £100 billion (numbers I remember from the past 12 months). The UK has 60 million people. If you multiply that by 5, that means roughly $1 trillion (subject to exchange rates) and 300 million people (just to compare the UK with the U.S.). Doctors make something like £100K per annum, and their malpractice insurance is something less than £5000 per annum. A far cry from the $250K U.S. doctors pay.
I almost lost my lower leg in the Italian NHS due to negligence, and vertually everyone I know finds something wrong with national health.
I am not opposed to health care reform, and the U.S. can come up with a block buster program that will set the global standards.
But the only proposal in Congress doesn't address the high costs. I expect that with the 50 million uninsured (at $2,5 trillion total costs for 85% insured), the cost will be something like $500 billion per annum (maybe less if people are younger).
But if you:
- legislate all people must be insured from 18 on their own policy and forbid people from taking their luck with their health because they want extra money in their pockets
- sell insurance across state lines
- reform the tort laws
- set up buying groups to source drugs
- force the 35% of supersized people to to reduce their weight and demands on the health care system
the issues you describe can be substantially reduced.
The UK health care system is a bottomless pit (to quote my doctor friend), and he prefers a private system. The UK has not managed health care well, and we have alot of useless politicans in the system. The UK has over 500 MPs. With the 5x multiple for the U.S., then that would make some 3000+. All trying to make their mark.
All of my doctor friends all understand that reason for high health care costs in the USA, its about:
- redundent procedures
- high mal practice insurance
- hideously high education costs and lost income in the early years
I would support health care reform is other options were on the table. But sadly nothing else is.
Also, do you know if Mr. Obama will release his birth certificate by 15 Sept. 2009?
- yes, the NHS may not prescribe the latest, most effective (read expensive) drug for a condition. Yes the NHS may not give you what you want as the most effective medication
- yes, an Osteopath friend of mine said that the UK is looking to reform the NHS with an Australian type system
- a GP friend said that the NHS is good with emergencies, but cronic illnesses are a problem, and one has to wait along time for say a hip replacement
- you folks proposing a U.S. NHS always talk about people going bankrupt even with insurance. Do you know anyone who has been in this position, and what kind of insurance do they have? Is it some inexpensive cover?
- How many people have died in the US because insurance companies have not approved procedures? I can't imagine many, can you quote an accurate figure?
- How many people have died because because they couldn't afford cover or drugs? Any real numbers here?
Actually, I have experience with the UK, Italy (both NHS type systems), Germany, Belgium, employer and private sponsored U.S. health cover.
The best system is the German system, where:
- it is against the law to not be insured once you turn 18
- you carry your insurance carrier until retirment when a Medicare style system is in place
- you split your coverage 50/50 with your employer
- you take your coverage with you when you change jobs
- the hospitals and doctors are private, and invoice the insurance companies
- the hospitals are well run, clean and modestly priced compared to the USA
- insurance is not cheap and gets more expensive when the insured get older
- doctors can do far more procedures in office than they can in the UK
With nationalized systems, yes, you can see the doctor. My local GP surgery is virtually empty, and when asked why, he said: "everyone just goes to the emergency room, and we just monitor the patients."
I don't know who you are Mr. IMSA, and would apprciate knowing your name, and what you do for a living.
Right now in the USA, you pay about 7.5% employee and employer contribution. That gives a decent Social Security payment when you retire and a $400 / week unemployment payment for 12 months.
Here in the UK, I pay 8,5% and my employer pays 12,5% of my gross for National Insurance which covers a £12/day unemployment payment for 6 months, and a max of £150/week max payment (after 40 years of service). That's why 15 years ago, private pension plans were started. Guess what, the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Excheker, decided to tax these funds to pay for his programs. Guess what, these private funds have not performed well, and the UK is in deep financial doo doo.
The NHS cost is 8% of GDP, which equates to £100 billion (numbers I remember from the past 12 months). The UK has 60 million people. If you multiply that by 5, that means roughly $1 trillion (subject to exchange rates) and 300 million people (just to compare the UK with the U.S.). Doctors make something like £100K per annum, and their malpractice insurance is something less than £5000 per annum. A far cry from the $250K U.S. doctors pay.
I almost lost my lower leg in the Italian NHS due to negligence, and vertually everyone I know finds something wrong with national health.
I am not opposed to health care reform, and the U.S. can come up with a block buster program that will set the global standards.
But the only proposal in Congress doesn't address the high costs. I expect that with the 50 million uninsured (at $2,5 trillion total costs for 85% insured), the cost will be something like $500 billion per annum (maybe less if people are younger).
But if you:
- legislate all people must be insured from 18 on their own policy and forbid people from taking their luck with their health because they want extra money in their pockets
- sell insurance across state lines
- reform the tort laws
- set up buying groups to source drugs
- force the 35% of supersized people to to reduce their weight and demands on the health care system
the issues you describe can be substantially reduced.
The UK health care system is a bottomless pit (to quote my doctor friend), and he prefers a private system. The UK has not managed health care well, and we have alot of useless politicans in the system. The UK has over 500 MPs. With the 5x multiple for the U.S., then that would make some 3000+. All trying to make their mark.
All of my doctor friends all understand that reason for high health care costs in the USA, its about:
- redundent procedures
- high mal practice insurance
- hideously high education costs and lost income in the early years
I would support health care reform is other options were on the table. But sadly nothing else is.
Also, do you know if Mr. Obama will release his birth certificate by 15 Sept. 2009?
From a friend in California:
“Breast cancer survival rates <http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/content/vol58/issue1/images/large/9fig12.jpeg> among the uninsured were also similar to Europe – 85 percent survival for those with private insurance, 75 percent for the uninsured, close to the European average. Rates for people on Medicaid were similar to the uninsured.”
“Breast cancer survival rates <http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/content/vol58/issue1/images/large/9fig12.jpeg> among the uninsured were also similar to Europe – 85 percent survival for those with private insurance, 75 percent for the uninsured, close to the European average. Rates for people on Medicaid were similar to the uninsured.”
I believe the UK NHS system is one of the best in the world. Why? Because the overriding maxim is medical need. At no point does anyone ask if you can pay or how much you earn. But it does have it problems.
If I feel sick I can call my GP and get an appointment for later today or tomorrow. If I feel really sick I can walk into accident and emergency (ER) and get seen by a nurse within about 20 mins.
Here is where the problems can start. You will be assessed as either an emergency case or a non emergency case.
A friend of mine was diagnosed with skin cancer last year. She walked into her GPs surgery about another problem and while she was there she asked the doctor to look at a mole that had changed shape. Within 24 hours she had an appointment with a cancer specialist, within 48 hours she was undergoing surgery to remove the mole. At no point did anyone ask her to pay for anything.
The other side to this is that my father had to wait 2 months for a hip replacement, he was deemed to be a non emergency case.
So there are good points and bad points to the NHS, but in my opinion the good far out way the bad.
While I dont want to get involved in what is an issue for US citizens. I would just like to make a couple of points.
A UK style NHS is probably not the right system for the US, I get the feeling that even most Democrats are a bit too right wing for such a system.
My second points is, as one of the most wealthy and advanced countries in the world not having free health care for ALL your citizens is a pretty poor show. Capitalism and social responsibility are not mutually exclusive. Denying access to basic health care based on a persons ability to pay is not what one would expect from the wealthiest nation on earth, especially one that holds its self out to be a beacon to the free world.
If I feel sick I can call my GP and get an appointment for later today or tomorrow. If I feel really sick I can walk into accident and emergency (ER) and get seen by a nurse within about 20 mins.
Here is where the problems can start. You will be assessed as either an emergency case or a non emergency case.
A friend of mine was diagnosed with skin cancer last year. She walked into her GPs surgery about another problem and while she was there she asked the doctor to look at a mole that had changed shape. Within 24 hours she had an appointment with a cancer specialist, within 48 hours she was undergoing surgery to remove the mole. At no point did anyone ask her to pay for anything.
The other side to this is that my father had to wait 2 months for a hip replacement, he was deemed to be a non emergency case.
So there are good points and bad points to the NHS, but in my opinion the good far out way the bad.
While I dont want to get involved in what is an issue for US citizens. I would just like to make a couple of points.
A UK style NHS is probably not the right system for the US, I get the feeling that even most Democrats are a bit too right wing for such a system.
My second points is, as one of the most wealthy and advanced countries in the world not having free health care for ALL your citizens is a pretty poor show. Capitalism and social responsibility are not mutually exclusive. Denying access to basic health care based on a persons ability to pay is not what one would expect from the wealthiest nation on earth, especially one that holds its self out to be a beacon to the free world.
Jon,
I appreciate your comments. Yanks will not be happy with having to wait for cronic illnesses. Again no health care is free. People have to pay for it some way or another. In the UK, it is free at the point of delivery (except when I moved here in 1994, needed a prescription, and the doctor who saw me charged me £40 / visit for my bp medication because I was a "private" patient).
For me, the answer is "we can do a better job than the bill that is on the table now." The guys in power want to ram their proposal down everyone's throats without discussion. That's where it gets political and that's what caused the opposition.
From CNBC yesterday.
msnbc.com Video Player
I appreciate your comments. Yanks will not be happy with having to wait for cronic illnesses. Again no health care is free. People have to pay for it some way or another. In the UK, it is free at the point of delivery (except when I moved here in 1994, needed a prescription, and the doctor who saw me charged me £40 / visit for my bp medication because I was a "private" patient).
For me, the answer is "we can do a better job than the bill that is on the table now." The guys in power want to ram their proposal down everyone's throats without discussion. That's where it gets political and that's what caused the opposition.
From CNBC yesterday.
msnbc.com Video Player
I believe the UK NHS system is one of the best in the world. Why? Because the overriding maxim is medical need. At no point does anyone ask if you can pay or how much you earn. But it does have it problems.
If I feel sick I can call my GP and get an appointment for later today or tomorrow. If I feel really sick I can walk into accident and emergency (ER) and get seen by a nurse within about 20 mins.
Here is where the problems can start. You will be assessed as either an emergency case or a non emergency case.
A friend of mine was diagnosed with skin cancer last year. She walked into her GPs surgery about another problem and while she was there she asked the doctor to look at a mole that had changed shape. Within 24 hours she had an appointment with a cancer specialist, within 48 hours she was undergoing surgery to remove the mole. At no point did anyone ask her to pay for anything.
The other side to this is that my father had to wait 2 months for a hip replacement, he was deemed to be a non emergency case.
So there are good points and bad points to the NHS, but in my opinion the good far out way the bad.
While I dont want to get involved in what is an issue for US citizens. I would just like to make a couple of points.
A UK style NHS is probably not the right system for the US, I get the feeling that even most Democrats are a bit too right wing for such a system.
My second points is, as one of the most wealthy and advanced countries in the world not having free health care for ALL your citizens is a pretty poor show. Capitalism and social responsibility are not mutually exclusive. Denying access to basic health care based on a persons ability to pay is not what one would expect from the wealthiest nation on earth, especially one that holds its self out to be a beacon to the free world.
Hear hear + 1 mate. Like education, healthcare is a partnership between the individuals and the organisation. At least in the UK, the NHS is campaigning for people to adopt a healthier attitude in life, and perhaps the so-called "failings" do tend to motivate the individual towards looking after themselves a little bit better than the obese American model we are used to seeing. Yes the same thing is happening here, and is due in part to the creeping "Americanisation" of our society via the general media and Hollywood, but there are so many NHS inspired free programs here, there is absolutely no need to wobble around like a ton of lard.
NHS is about dedicated people, a vocation, a calling, you either care or you don't. Fortunately, everyone I have had contact with in the NHS these past 64 years, whether black, white, pink or yellow in ethnic origin have been absolutely top notch. The REAL leeches in the NHS who consume much of the available budget are the damned 'Managers' - the non medics.
Guys,
Just a few more thoughts on the differences between Europe and the USA:
- Your forefathers went to the new world for opportunity, freedom from religious oppression, and government intervention
- With opportunity, they thrived and built a very rich nation with a middle class that was the envy of the world
- socialism was seen by the most left wing Americans (like my forefathers from Italy) as good for those in need only (read no welfare except for those who could not work)
- we all believed that if you want to eat, you have to work
Can I restate the issue: The problem is not a lack of health care, but a lack of jobs which pay for the health care. The U.S. has outsourced too many jobs to Mexico and China and imports far too many goods and now services that it produces insufficient jobs to fund its social programs (which are not small). In fact one of my conservative friends said that Geitner (Sec of the Treasury) cannot sell U.S. Government T bills to the Chinese any longer. In any way shape or form, people have to pay for health care in the form of insurance, up front charges, or after delivery.
FYI, and someone from Illinois can clarify this for me. Cook County has:
- the highest sales tax in the country (10.25%) and much goes to fund the County run hospital which provides free health care
- very high real estate taxes
- a state income tax
- and on and on
I'll bet the citizens of Illinois pay close to 50% in total taxes. A friend from Silicone Valley said the same about California taxation.
Just a few more thoughts on the differences between Europe and the USA:
- Your forefathers went to the new world for opportunity, freedom from religious oppression, and government intervention
- With opportunity, they thrived and built a very rich nation with a middle class that was the envy of the world
- socialism was seen by the most left wing Americans (like my forefathers from Italy) as good for those in need only (read no welfare except for those who could not work)
- we all believed that if you want to eat, you have to work
Can I restate the issue: The problem is not a lack of health care, but a lack of jobs which pay for the health care. The U.S. has outsourced too many jobs to Mexico and China and imports far too many goods and now services that it produces insufficient jobs to fund its social programs (which are not small). In fact one of my conservative friends said that Geitner (Sec of the Treasury) cannot sell U.S. Government T bills to the Chinese any longer. In any way shape or form, people have to pay for health care in the form of insurance, up front charges, or after delivery.
FYI, and someone from Illinois can clarify this for me. Cook County has:
- the highest sales tax in the country (10.25%) and much goes to fund the County run hospital which provides free health care
- very high real estate taxes
- a state income tax
- and on and on
I'll bet the citizens of Illinois pay close to 50% in total taxes. A friend from Silicone Valley said the same about California taxation.
Guys,
Just a few more thoughts on the differences between Europe and the USA:
- Your forefathers went to the new world for opportunity, freedom from religious oppression, and government intervention
- With opportunity, they thrived and built a very rich nation with a middle class that was the envy of the world
- socialism was seen by the most left wing Americans (like my forefathers from Italy) as good for those in need only (read no welfare except for those who could not work)
- we all believed that if you want to eat, you have to work
Can I restate the issue: The problem is not a lack of health care, but a lack of jobs which pay for the health care. The U.S. has outsourced too many jobs to Mexico and China and imports far too many goods and now services that it produces insufficient jobs to fund its social programs (which are not small). In fact one of my conservative friends said that Geitner (Sec of the Treasury) cannot sell U.S. Government T bills to the Chinese any longer. In any way shape or form, people have to pay for health care in the form of insurance, up front charges, or after delivery.
I somewhat agree. Yes there's excellent health care in the US, if you can afford it, but due to increased costs, a continued stagnation in wages, health care has become too expensive for an increasing percentage of the population. In my opinion, the whole mess started when health care became a for profit industry.
FYI, and someone from Illinois can clarify this for me. Cook County has:
- the highest sales tax in the country (10.25%) and much goes to fund the County run hospital which provides free health care
- very high real estate taxes
- a state income tax
- and on and on
I'll bet the citizens of Illinois pay close to 50% in total taxes. A friend from Silicone Valley said the same about California taxation.
I somewhat agree. Yes there's excellent health care in the US, if you can afford it, but due to increased costs, a continued stagnation in wages, health care has become too expensive for an increasing percentage of the population. In my opinion, the whole mess started when health care became a for profit industry.
IMSA
I agree with Dom, the major problem with the expense of US. healthcare is the fact we have no jobs to pay for it. By exporting jobs to foreign nations, and allowing a large population of undocumented workers and their families to take adavantage of our social services, we keep slicing the pie of available dollars to thin.
If we took a more conservative look at our social systems, and our immigration and citizenship programs, we would be able to stop alot of wasteful spending. Then maybe free healthcare wouldn't be a big deal.
Take care fellows, and I am currently un-insured.
If we took a more conservative look at our social systems, and our immigration and citizenship programs, we would be able to stop alot of wasteful spending. Then maybe free healthcare wouldn't be a big deal.
Take care fellows, and I am currently un-insured.
Well, here are a few responses:
- yes, the NHS may not prescribe the latest, most effective (read expensive) drug for a condition. Yes the NHS may not give you what you want as the most effective medication
- yes, an Osteopath friend of mine said that the UK is looking to reform the NHS with an Australian type system
- a GP friend said that the NHS is good with emergencies, but cronic illnesses are a problem, and one has to wait along time for say a hip replacement
- you folks proposing a U.S. NHS always talk about people going bankrupt even with insurance. Do you know anyone who has been in this position, and what kind of insurance do they have? Is it some inexpensive cover?
- How many people have died in the US because insurance companies have not approved procedures? I can't imagine many, can you quote an accurate figure?
- How many people have died because because they couldn't afford cover or drugs? Any real numbers here?
Actually, I have experience with the UK, Italy (both NHS type systems), Germany, Belgium, employer and private sponsored U.S. health cover.
The best system is the German system, where:
- it is against the law to not be insured once you turn 18
- you carry your insurance carrier until retirment when a Medicare style system is in place
- you split your coverage 50/50 with your employer
- you take your coverage with you when you change jobs
- the hospitals and doctors are private, and invoice the insurance companies
- the hospitals are well run, clean and modestly priced compared to the USA
- insurance is not cheap and gets more expensive when the insured get older
- doctors can do far more procedures in office than they can in the UK
With nationalized systems, yes, you can see the doctor. My local GP surgery is virtually empty, and when asked why, he said: "everyone just goes to the emergency room, and we just monitor the patients."
I don't know who you are Mr. IMSA, and would apprciate knowing your name, and what you do for a living.
Right now in the USA, you pay about 7.5% employee and employer contribution. That gives a decent Social Security payment when you retire and a $400 / week unemployment payment for 12 months.
Here in the UK, I pay 8,5% and my employer pays 12,5% of my gross for National Insurance which covers a £12/day unemployment payment for 6 months, and a max of £150/week max payment (after 40 years of service). That's why 15 years ago, private pension plans were started. Guess what, the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Excheker, decided to tax these funds to pay for his programs. Guess what, these private funds have not performed well, and the UK is in deep financial doo doo.
The NHS cost is 8% of GDP, which equates to £100 billion (numbers I remember from the past 12 months). The UK has 60 million people. If you multiply that by 5, that means roughly $1 trillion (subject to exchange rates) and 300 million people (just to compare the UK with the U.S.). Doctors make something like £100K per annum, and their malpractice insurance is something less than £5000 per annum. A far cry from the $250K U.S. doctors pay.
I almost lost my lower leg in the Italian NHS due to negligence, and vertually everyone I know finds something wrong with national health.
I am not opposed to health care reform, and the U.S. can come up with a block buster program that will set the global standards.
But the only proposal in Congress doesn't address the high costs. I expect that with the 50 million uninsured (at $2,5 trillion total costs for 85% insured), the cost will be something like $500 billion per annum (maybe less if people are younger).
But if you:
- legislate all people must be insured from 18 on their own policy and forbid people from taking their luck with their health because they want extra money in their pockets
- sell insurance across state lines
- reform the tort laws
- set up buying groups to source drugs
- force the 35% of supersized people to to reduce their weight and demands on the health care system
the issues you describe can be substantially reduced.
The UK health care system is a bottomless pit (to quote my doctor friend), and he prefers a private system. The UK has not managed health care well, and we have alot of useless politicans in the system. The UK has over 500 MPs. With the 5x multiple for the U.S., then that would make some 3000+. All trying to make their mark.
All of my doctor friends all understand that reason for high health care costs in the USA, its about:
- redundent procedures
- high mal practice insurance
- hideously high education costs and lost income in the early years
I would support health care reform is other options were on the table. But sadly nothing else is.
Also, do you know if Mr. Obama will release his birth certificate by 15 Sept. 2009?
Now this is the type of constructive discussion I had originally hoped we could engage in as reasonable and rational adults.
“I don't know who you are Mr. IMSA, and would appreciate knowing your name, and what you do for a living.”
Domtoi, my name is Terry Teadtke, I’m 53, live in Portland, Oregon, and I am involved in several ventures. I’m a Realtor, I own a house restoration company, a small property management company to oversee my properties and a few properties for others, and I am in the process of opening a custom furniture manufacturing company as well. I’ve done well over the years though I’ve had my ups and downs like a lot of people. I continue to work because I enjoy what I do and it keeps me busy.
I’m healthy but it’s impossible for me to buy medical insurance at any price due to a long time pre-existing condition. I’ve worked all my life and yet I’m one major illness or major injury away from financial ruin if anything happens to me.
"- you folks proposing a U.S. NHS always talk about people going bankrupt even with insurance. Do you know anyone who has been in this position, and what kind of insurance do they have? Is it some inexpensive cover?"
Yes, my next door neighbor had to declare bankruptcy after his insurance company refused to pay for a portion of his treatment citing it was a pre-existing condition. He thought he had good insurance. His agent told him he had good insurance. Apparently his insurance company didn't agree after reviewing the case.
"Also, do you know if Mr. Obama will release his birth certificate by 15 Sept. 2009?"
I hope your kidding but if you must know, I heard he's out having a few beers with his secret Muslim terrorist friends at the moment.
IMSA
I agree with Dom, the major problem with the expense of US. healthcare is the fact we have no jobs to pay for it. By exporting jobs to foreign nations, and allowing a large population of undocumented workers and their families to take adavantage of our social services, we keep slicing the pie of available dollars to thin.
If we took a more conservative look at our social systems, and our immigration and citizenship programs, we would be able to stop alot of wasteful spending. Then maybe free healthcare wouldn't be a big deal.
Take care fellows, and I am currently un-insured.
I agree to much of what you have to say, especially getting a hold of our illegal immigration issues and the exporting of middle class jobs.
IMSA
Thanks IMSA,
I feel if we had a better path to citizenship, we could bring more workers into the US. legally. This would also in turn help raise wages, as more documented workes enter our workforce, there are less undocumented workers, with lower employment costs to underbid jobs, taking money away from legal American workers. It is a win win situation, where more immigrants can become naturalized, and get higher paychecks, easing the burden on social services and the strain on our medical facilities that have to treat patients regardless of insurance coverage in life threatening situations. This would also give more lower earning workers the chance to purchase health insurance through their employer, since they are now insureable American citizens.
I say give immigrants the ability to work for our government or millitary, which would add value to their immigration proceedings, receive language and citizenship training, and give them on the job training. Let them scrape barnacles of our battleships for a couple years for free intrade for food, housing, a social #, and then set them into the workforce with some trianing, speaking English, and SS#. At least now they can contribute to our country, legally!
Take care gents. Still un-insured, guess I need to make more money. Available for hire, to post rants and raves on forums for $1000 an hour. Contact my attorney, he's working a malpractice suit right now so he's a little busy, but for $100 he'll take your call, put you on hold, then hang up when he feels like it. Lol.
I feel if we had a better path to citizenship, we could bring more workers into the US. legally. This would also in turn help raise wages, as more documented workes enter our workforce, there are less undocumented workers, with lower employment costs to underbid jobs, taking money away from legal American workers. It is a win win situation, where more immigrants can become naturalized, and get higher paychecks, easing the burden on social services and the strain on our medical facilities that have to treat patients regardless of insurance coverage in life threatening situations. This would also give more lower earning workers the chance to purchase health insurance through their employer, since they are now insureable American citizens.
I say give immigrants the ability to work for our government or millitary, which would add value to their immigration proceedings, receive language and citizenship training, and give them on the job training. Let them scrape barnacles of our battleships for a couple years for free intrade for food, housing, a social #, and then set them into the workforce with some trianing, speaking English, and SS#. At least now they can contribute to our country, legally!
Take care gents. Still un-insured, guess I need to make more money. Available for hire, to post rants and raves on forums for $1000 an hour. Contact my attorney, he's working a malpractice suit right now so he's a little busy, but for $100 he'll take your call, put you on hold, then hang up when he feels like it. Lol.
Socialized medicine countries have a higher death rate for all forms of cancer than the US.
This isn't completely true, and if you break things down, there are some observations
worth noting. In general, yes, according to the recently published CONCORD, the US
has the best mortality rates for breast, rectal, colon, colorectal and prostate cancer,
for women, Cuba has better survival rates for breast, colon, colorectal and rectal cancers,
and for men, Japan and Cuba have better rectal and colorectal survival rates, and Japan
has better colon cancer survival rates. Interestingly, if you look at survival rates for
African Americans, the US rates are significantly worse, which is used to show that if
you can afford it, the US system is great, but if not, it isn't. Which appears to be the
issue, no?
However, cancer mortality rates should not be the sole factor in determining how good
your health system is. For example, most studies show that the infant mortality rate in
the US is one of the worst for all modern nations, national health care regardless. And the
under 5 mortality rate is also bad. Japan, Sweden, France, Iceland, Finland, Germany,
Australia, UK and Cuba all have better rates, and are all considered to have a universal
health care system.
Just food for thought ...
Ian
Illegal immigration is another issue all to gether. I have no insurance currently, mostly because of choice. I pay my medical bills as I go. They are pretty low to non existant because we live a healthy life. Why should I pay for someone that abuses their body with too much food, drugs, etc...through higher premiums. If there is universal health care, everyone will use it for just about anything including the smallest sniffle. Why not? it's free! It certainly will be not free, I will be forced to pay up to 8% of my total payroll just in this healthcare tax. That could put me out of business. Now about this immigration issue. I hire great workers from Brazil and they are here on working visas. This is great because the government gets all of the taxes in social security and medicare and will never have to pay out a dime on them. I do pay them extremly well. I pay piece work and they earn every penny of it, where my "naturalized" employees are more lazy and just have a diferent work ethic. I pay them all the same per peice of work, but my Brazil boys just work everyone else under the table. I don't hire them because of cheap labor, but because they have a fantastic work ethic, and I pay them for it.
Once again, why not debate as to why health care is soooo expensive. Everyone touts that it is just out of control, but don't ask why. Get rid of attorneys which will lower the cost of insurance, open the borders for more competition. Wow, it will be much more cost effective for everyone to afford.
Once again, why not debate as to why health care is soooo expensive. Everyone touts that it is just out of control, but don't ask why. Get rid of attorneys which will lower the cost of insurance, open the borders for more competition. Wow, it will be much more cost effective for everyone to afford.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 627