National health care

Now see, in my opinion, and call me a hard nosed bitch if you want, but in my opinion the fact that England's NHS DOES NOT discriminate between the rich and the poor is exactly what's wrong with it. While yes, I believe that everyone should receive health care, I also believe that "membership has it's privlidges" so to speak.

I don't believe that I should have to wait in line behind someone when I work 60 hours a week, pay for top of the line insurance, and am a medical professional, given that we were both needing the same thing done. Obviously if that person is medically worse off than myself, or it's an emergency then absolutely, they should go first.

My issue here is that in this country 1 out of every 13 Americans is on some form of disability. They can sit back on their fat lazy asses soaking up my hard earned money, when I am working my fool ass off to provide a better life for my family. I'm sorry, I deserve better than what they are getting. I work, I pay my bills, I contribute back to society, all most or some of them do is leach off of everyone else. Sorry, in my opinion you work you eat, you don't work, well sorry about your luck. You had better find something to do or you are going to starve. It's also a fact that in upwards of 90 percent of American's on disability can work, they just chose not to.

The saying is, you get what you pay for. You don't pay, you don't get. I pay for top of the line health insurance, it should stand to reason that I should get top of the line health care, and not told I have to wait because the welfare momma having her 6th child has brought the entire brood into the ER because they have a runny nose.

It's no wonder America is the "land of the free", absolutely it is. Where else can you live for free, have all of your medical care for free, have free housing, and free food, all free, and yet still expect that you are entitled to everything else for free all because you have a non-existant diagnosis of something like whinny-ass fat woman's syndrom, better known as Fibromyalgia. Seriously? Come on already.

Just my two cents, and I'm sure it's not going to be a very popular 2 cents worth either, but it is what it is.

Mashie

Now see, in my opinion, and call me a hard nosed bitch if you want, but in my opinion the fact that England's NHS DOES NOT discriminate between the rich and the poor is exactly what's wrong with it. While yes, I believe that everyone should receive health care, I also believe that "membership has it's privlidges" so to speak.

Mashie

In all the countries that have a national health care system there are always physicians and clinics available that do operate on a private basis and in which you then must pay the full market asking price for their services - which is then often a multiple of national health care system prices. If you don't wish to stand in line or be in the same (waiting) room with someone you consider undeserving of medical attention, then you can go to a private doctor and be ushered in directly and given the full treatment your money entitles you to. There is no question that this is no longer allowed in national health care systems, of course it is. But it operates under different rules - that of the marketplace in which money rules.

Nor are all health care systems completely free either. In Belgium for instance, patients always have to pay out of their own pocket a certain percentage of medical costs. This percentage is set according to the urgency and/or necessity of the required or asked for treatment. If you come in for a condition that is, let us say ultimately inconsequential, then you end up paying much much more than for truly serious medical conditions. The same goes for the costs of medication. An asthma patient will for instance pay the minimum amount for their asthma medication, while other medications may perhaps even be paid for in full.

The reason for this system in Belgium, which is a sort of a cross between socialized medicine and a mild form of free market interaction, is that it is intended to act as a brake against unnecessary consumption of medical services and medications. If your condition warrants it, then it is much cheaper in cost. If you wish a private room in a hospital for instance, then you pay far more than if you choose for a double room or a 4 person ward. This is a simple (though the details are quite exhaustive) manner to prevent just what you complain about. If for instance you go to an emergency room and your condition turns out not to be of an urgent or serious nature, then you must pay a considerable supplement for the services. If it is urgent or serious, then you need pay nothing extra. This is a simple but effective measure to cut back on abuse of the system of emergency room treatments.

In Belgium, differently from other systems, you are not assigned a doctor by virtue of geographical location. Here you are free to choose any doctor you wish at all and still benefit from the existing health care system. If you wish to drive the full length of the country (all of 300km) because you prefer a doctor for any reason at all, then you are free to do so. You may also change doctors as often as you wish and still pay the same prices for services. There is no question of being assigned a doctor.

In Spain there is a somewhat similar system in place. Medical treatment (unless totally frivolous) is free but if you go to a private doctor, then you pay full price and get the deluxe no waiting treatment. Many doctors in the state medical system in Spain do not work full time in that system either, but are allowed to have a private practice on the side if they should so wish, in order to augment their income. They work 75-25% of the time in one and the other for instance. This comes down to a well balanced system. The rich and affluent can avoid mingling with José Sixpack and the national health system is relieved of treating frivolous conditions or of having to cater to people who wish to pay more for a faster or more convenient service.

We often talk here on the forum as if there were stark, black and white choices in health care systems and it seems as if Americans tend to equate the British NHS with that of the rest of the world. How each country seeks to implement a health care system suited to their needs and national temperament and proclivities can vary considerably and is moreover a very detailed, exhaustive (and frankly boring) subject.

But one thing on which almost all countries are agreed is that medical health care systems should never be left to the vagueries and whims of an unfettered marketplace. That only ultimately results in gross inequities and social injustice. None of the countries with national health care systems wish for a world in which Social Darwinism is the rule and the weak fall by the roadside as collateral damage to the workings of a Randian free market. To counter that there must be some form of social solidarity. Instituting a form of socialized national health care is one of the ways of doing so and has been seen to be very successful where implemented.

Not all Americans hate the idea of National Health Care. Change is hard to deal with, and this would be a huge change. We have no proof or guarantee it would work, and we have a right to question it. Seriously, unless you live here, you really don't know what is going on all around us. You can brag all you want about what you have in your countries, but you cannot guarantee the USA would set ours up like that either. There are just too many unknowns.

Seriously, unless you live here, you really don't know what is going on all around us. You can brag all you want about what you have in your countries, but you cannot guarantee the USA would set ours up like that either.

I'm certain I am not the only one here on the Forum who has lived in both the US and other countries. That does give more of an insider's outside view. Sometimes it can be like role-playing or taking part in a debate when you have to be able to argue both sides of an issue. It helps get a perspective for some things while still having experienced them.

And I don't think people are really bragging about their health care systems as such. They can be proud of them when compared to some of the US alternatives however - possible medical bankruptcy, no treatment for pre-existing conditions, medical costs per annum at a manifold higher than in other countries, the possibility of loosing medical insurance when loosing a job (which is like adding insult to injury - or injury to insult more properly). I grew up in a (youthful) world in which the US was the summum of modernity and scientific and technological innovation and in the manner in which personal and social freedom was defined. I think what most people here on the Forum are really doing is not bragging at all, but expressing amazement and flabbergastedness that the US does not have all the advantages and lower costs as in any number of variations on tried and proven national health systems elsewhere. This is such a basic human right in and of itself that it is amazing there should even be any discussion on the matter. Why do so many people in the US oppose even modest improvements and alterations when the status quo is clearly not in their (financial or medical) interests? Americans like to think of themselves as hard-nosed businessmen interested in the bottom line. So why settle for 16% percent spending of the GNP on medical costs when other countries can do it for half the price? That does seem 100% at odds with the spirit of getting a good bargain. By any definition it's not a bargain at all, but a rip-off, a racket and not a very subtle one either.

But you're probably correct that there is no guarantee that that a US system would end up being similar in nature to those described here. There are however enough real-world examples to show that it does work very well indeed when implemented. So it's not just an airy concept being discussed.

Those who profit from and by the US system would stand to loose a substantial amount of income were it ever to be revised and made more equitable. And those interests will probably stop at nothing to spread lies and fear and do their utmost to keep that from happening. And things seem to become so violent so quickly when disagreements are aired in the US. It's guns and resistance to the government before you can say Jack Robinson. Instead of sitting down and talking things over and reaching a compromise, striving for consensus or accepting the inevitability of progress and an ever evolving social order.

Change is too big a subject for some to wrap their minds around, soumise. :😃

The Canadian government finally realized we have lots of "immigrants" who come only long enough to qualify for our liberal health care benefits with their newly acquired dual citizenship, then promptly return from whence they came, until they need some sort of medical care. Many of these reportedly will have their "phony" citizenship revoked.

I do have a theory about why National Health Care is so rejected in our country. I developed my theory based on observing my mother and other family members throughout the years. My mother was born in 1944. She was the third born in her family of 4 children. They had survived the Great Depression and WWII was almost over. While she was growing up, the ability to afford going to the doctor was a sign of your social status. The more you were able to go, the more well off financially you appeared to be to the onlookers from society. Baby Boomers fit right in this generation with my mother and there are a lot of them. With the idea engrained in them that 'top medical care', and lots of it, was a sign of a higher social class than those who couldn't afford medical care, it became 'classy' to go to 'the doctor'. This is something that I still battle with my mother about regularly. She had so many MRIs and CT scans in one year, that her hair started falling out! To her, it was her right to go to the doctor as many times as THEY felt necessary, even though the doctors' lack of communication with each other was detrimental to her health. They feel the 'need' to spend all of their money on doctors, tests, and medications. It's not politically correct, it's not socially acceptable, but it is just my theory.

Just to bring this thread back on track...Here in the UK we have a choice, there is the good old NHS but also the private health sector that sits alongside it. In the last twenty years particularly, there has been a big increase in the number of private hospitals, private GP practices, walk in medicentres etc. People sometimes have private health insurance as part of their job package, I did myself.

Consultant surgeons and the like run their own private clinics in addition to their NHS responsibilities. So if you want to jump the queue for a hip replacement then you are perfectly free to do so, that's your personal choice if your financial situation allows it.

But for most people, when something really serious happens or their circumstances are suddenly changed, then the NHS is there as a safety net and the big machine swings into action.

Perhaps you take the view that it would never happen to you and yours?

I have been to America but never lived there, so from this distance it is difficult to understand the detail of the system. But to my mind the healthcare is far too expensive and I don't know why that is.

The other guy mentioned what could be achieved through free enterprise, I'll certainly champion free enterprise...Bring on Maggie!

But free enterprise = competition and competition drives down prices. That doesn't appear to be happening here, I wonder why that is?

If you don't like these proposals then write your congressman or who ever represents you, that's what we do over here.

It's very difficult for democratically elected governments to push through unpopular measures against the will of the people.

Dr Philip - The UK Play Doctor.

\nI have been to America but never lived there, so from this distance it is difficult to understand the detail of the system. But to my mind the healthcare is far too expensive and I don\'t know why that is.

\nThe other guy mentioned what could be achieved through free enterprise, I\'ll certainly champion free enterprise...Bring on Maggie!

\nBut free enterprise = competition and competition drives down prices. That doesn\'t appear to be happening here, I wonder why that is?

If free enterprise equals competition and competition by definition is supposed to bring down prices, but is not doing so - then it is reasonable to deduce that there is probably no free enterprise to begin with in the first place.

It should be obvious from very basic statistics alone - US medical spending is at 16-18% of GNP - other (European) countries stand at around 8-9% of GNP, that something else is affecting US medical spending. It is being kept artificially high because it is controlled by a group of closed interests who shamelessly milk the system for every penny they can squeeze out the population. And just to make sure citizens will not come to conclusions about other possible health care systems, they generate scare stories and spread fear and anxiety about possible avenues of change. Words and concepts become loaded with patriotic and emotional connotations - let's try out the word 'socialism' for starters for instance. Brand something or someone as such in the US and it is the same as calling someone a witch in the 17th century. It results in hysteria and a complete abandonment of reason and thinking.

Agracier and Dr Phillip. You are both correct. We pay a lot more for medical and get less. With the private hospitals in the UK it's the same for free education in the US.

This thread is about the health care systems and how the operate. NOT POLITICS OR ANCIENT HISTORY.

So . . . should the public dole be used to fund medical expenses of victims of natural catastrophes if they are otherwise uninsured privately?

FYI: You have to be a veteran to know the Nam Era is NOT "ancient history"; neither is post-Columbian Am. history.

Well it is election day in the US so I guess this whole thread will be decided soon. When I started it I really didn't want to get into the politics of it. I realize now you can't seperate the two.

So that being said thank you all for your input and let this one close.

To northernguy

Thank you. Nam is with me every day. It is not only the reason for my PTSD but also my Incon and my nightmares. But every day gets a little better so let's move on.

Re pros & cons of Canadian Health care: based on a medical finding just five days ago, I've now been booked for a CT scan with less than 24 hrs. notice (and it won't cost me one cent - I walk in, get a head, chest, abdo, and pelvis scan, and walk out).