America on the NHS

[revolution saint]

it may not descriminate on age..but it does refuse treatment...

 

Of course it does and in some cases it's wrong and in others (hopefully the majority) it's based on clinical reasons rather than financial ones. However that wasn't the point of the original post.

 

You were arguing against sex change operations earlier weren't you? If one was refused are you now saying that would be wrong?

[Thedelldays]

Of course it does and in some cases it's wrong and in others (hopefully the majority) it's based on clinical reasons rather than financial ones. However that wasn't the point of the original post.

 

You were arguing against sex change operations earlier weren't you? If one was refused are you now saying that would be wrong?

well, yes....

 

to have a sex change does not mean you have a terminal or life threatening illness.....

 

the fact that people argue the case for them and get it done on the NHS is not really what the thing was set up for in the first place....

[Johnny Bognor]

So despite everything that's still No, the NHS don't descriminate on age and no they don't place an arbitrary price on six months of life at $20,000. Took a while but we got there in the end!

 

No they don't place an arbitary price on anyone's life, they place a very real price usually based on the cost of the drugs - this may be more or less than the $20,000 quoted. Still placing a price on life though, isn't it?

[revolution saint]

well, yes....

 

to have a sex change does not mean you have a terminal or life threatening illness.....

 

the fact that people argue the case for them and get it done on the NHS is not really what the thing was set up for in the first place....

 

I thought it was set up to provide health care? Where did Nye Bevin state "We now have a health care service for all, well i say all but I really mean the terminal and life threatening things - the rest of you with minor ailments can **** off".

 

I've had ingrowing toenails, tonsils, adenoids and a hernia treated. None of them life threatening though.

[bridge too far]

Part of the problem with the NHS is government interference with constant change of policy WITHOUT consultantion with those on the ground.

 

Just when a new policy is established a new minister wants to put their mark on the way the NHS is run.

 

Did anyone see the "Can Gerry Robinson fix the NHS programmes"? A great insight to where money is wasted and the power struggle of NHS Trusts: http://www.open2.net/nhs/index.html/url]

 

sorry this is off topic but thought there was genuine interest.

 

I think that power struggle has only been a recent development (started about 15/16 years ago?) when the purchaser / provider split was implemented. Partly because some people thought the NHS should be run as a commercial enterprise.

 

I can remember a Health Centre bidding for an x-ray machine because the Health Centre was located on the cusp of two NHS Trusts and the Trust owning the Health Centre wanted to draw people away from its competitor. A waste of money as both local Trusts had the required equipment.

[revolution saint]

No they don't place an arbitary price on anyone's life, they place a very real price usually based on the cost of the drugs - this may be more or less than the $20,000 quoted. Still placing a price on life though, isn't it?

 

Oh come on, you say there's inefficiency in the NHS and then expect to treat absolutely everything? Of course money will come into the equation but the difference is it's hopefully based on the individual, the illness and the treatment available. It's not arbitrary which was the point.

[bridge too far]

No they don't place an arbitary price on anyone's life, they place a very real price usually based on the cost of the drugs - this may be more or less than the $20,000 quoted. Still placing a price on life though, isn't it?

 

So you didn't read what I posted about my mother receiving 9 years' worth of drugs at £30,000 a year = £270,000 then?

[Thedelldays]

So you didn't read what I posted about my mother receiving 9 years' worth of drugs at £30,000 a year = £270,000 then?

that is one example...still places a price on life though, depending where you live

[Thedelldays]

I thought it was set up to provide health care? Where did Nye Bevin state "We now have a health care service for all, well i say all but I really mean the terminal and life threatening things - the rest of you with minor ailments can **** off".

 

I've had ingrowing toenails, tonsils, adenoids and a hernia treated. None of them life threatening though.

the cost of a hernia op against the cost of a sex change and all that goes with it..

 

hmmm, do you really think im that thick..?

[revolution saint]

that is one example...still places a price on life though, depending where you live

 

I'd agree with you there - the treatment you get should not be determined by where you live. This was driven by a need for the patient (or shall we call them customer) being given the choice of where to be treated. It's wrong and unworkable - ironically though it was supposed to make the NHS act more like a business rather than a not for profit health care organisation.

[Johnny Bognor]

Oh come on, you say there's inefficiency in the NHS and then expect to treat absolutely everything?

 

I don't expect it to or want it to treat everything, in fact it can't afford to and therefore it has to put a price on poeples lives. Most people, like BTF's relative are lucky and get funding whilst some do not. There is an ever-increasing lottery feel to our healthcare system.

 

Of course money will come into the equation but the difference is it's hopefully based on the individual, the illness and the treatment available.

 

Unfortunately it is based upon arbitrary government targets and budgets

 

 

It's not arbitrarywhich was the point.

 

No there is not a specific arbitrary figure so to speak, however as budgets are arbitrary (along with the opinion of clinical need) and the fact that these are linked to whether you get treated or not, you could argue that arbitrary values are placed on people lives - depending upon where you live.

 

My father-in-law was refused life saving heart surgery on the basis that the benefit gained was not worth the money - you try explaining that to my wife. As it happens, we had to privately fund the op ourselves.

 

But if you want to be a chick with a ****...... roll on up

Edited 13 August, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[revolution saint]

the cost of a hernia op against the cost of a sex change and all that goes with it..

 

hmmm, do you really think im that thick..?

 

I can only judge you by what you post but no, I don't think you're that thick. However once you say it's healthcare rather than terminal and life threatening then it becomes a question of interpretation.

[bridge too far]

that is one example...still places a price on life though, depending where you live

 

You see, on the one hand we have people demanding that local NHS bodies (in these cases it's the Primary Care Trusts) manage their own budgets and decide how to spend their money but then those same people complain about 'postcode lotteries'. Everyone wants every treatment to be available for them even if it is at the expense of someone else. A judgement has to be made and someone has to do it.

 

If the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) says a drug should be available on the NHS, it usually is. The 'problems' come when NICE questions the efficacy of the drug. NICE comprises clinicians, patients etc who are therefore best placed to judged each treatment and is an expert advisory body.

 

However, as I've already said, pharma companies put huge emotional pressure on patients who could potentially be prescribed their expensive drugs to campaign for that drug to be commonly available.

 

NICE has the almost impossible task of saying that the benefits of that drug have not been conclusively demonstrated. It must be hard to tell patients that the benefits of the drug are not overwhelmingly clear and cannot therefore be funded.

 

I wouldn't like to be the PCT budget holder having to choose between one patient and another to receive funding from a limited budget. But that's what you get with local democracy.

 

Let's not forget the commercial interests of some clinicans (although there are a large number who are only interested in the welfare of their patients). Did you know that when Canada changed from an 'NHS' to a system more akin to the American one, the incidence of gall bladder removal soared?

 

Was this coincidental or did the Canadian surgeons suddenly see an opportunity?

[Johnny Bognor]

I wouldn't like to be the PCT budget holder having to choose between one patient and another to receive funding from a limited budget.

 

Can't argue with that

 

Let's not forget the commercial interests of some clinicans (although there are a large number who are only interested in the welfare of their patients). Did you know that when Canada changed from an 'NHS' to a system more akin to the American one, the incidence of gall bladder removal soared?

 

Was this coincidental or did the Canadian surgeons suddenly see an opportunity

 

A good friend of mine is a GP and a partner in the practice. His earnings have more than doubled to over £150,000 per annum over the last 10 years. Many surgeries are renumerated/incetivsed based on treating people with one of ten named ailments/illnesses. Therefore, he is more keen to treat one of those "on the list" as he has targets to hit and at the same time gets well rewarded for hitting them. How is this any different to the Canadian example you cited....and this is happending within our morally superior and beloved NHS - driven by a central policy from the beloved socialists in whitehall.

 

As I keep saying, the NHS is better than no NHS, but stop pretending it is somthing which it is clearly not.

Edited 13 August, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[solentstars]

the american system would cost us a fortune for private health insurance and for most companys and people its to expensive.its mega money profits for the big companys which own them.

i remember in 2000 in florida a guy i met whose baby was ill had to pay 60 dollars consulaltcity fee before the docter would even see them .ours is not the best system in the world but its better then americas for ordinary people.

the richest country in the world which ranks 37th in the world with puerto rico ,while we rank 18 th.

[Johnny Bognor]

the american system would cost us a fortune for private health insurance and for most companys and people its to expensive.its mega money profits for the big companys which own them.

i remember in 2000 in florida a guy i met whose baby was ill had to pay 60 dollars consulaltcity fee before the docter would even see them .ours is not the best system in the world but its better then americas for ordinary people.

the richest country in the world which ranks 37th in the world with puerto rico ,while we rank 18 th.

 

.... and in the same report (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/799444.stm) France is ranked first.

 

But in France, you have to pay when you see a GP, so your point is?????

[bridge too far]

Can't argue with that

 

 

 

A good friend of mine is a GP and a partner in the practice. His earnings have more than doubled to over £150,000 per annum over the last 10 years. Many surgeries are renumerated/incetivsed based on treating people with one of ten named ailments/illnesses. Therefore, he is more keen to treat one of those "on the list" as he has targets to hit and at the same time gets well rewarded for hitting them. How is this any different to the Canadian example you cited....and this is happending within our morally superior and beloved NHS - driven by a central policy from the beloved socialists in whitehall.

 

As I keep saying, the NHS is better than no NHS, but stop pretending it is somthing which it is clearly not.

 

Many GPs increased their earnings because they took over the surgeries to run them as businesses. This means they have to pay staff, running costs and contribute to the cost of an out-of-hours service if they don't provide one themselves out of those earnings.

 

It makes sense to 'target' the named illnesses because they are probably related to smoking, alcohol consumption, STDs and obesity. These cost the NHS £millions to treat and it is more than likely more cost-effective to prevent them than to cure them. For a long time, large parts of the NHS budget have been devolved to primary care and preventative strategies and rightly so.

 

Your example bears no comparison with the 'Canadian' story at all. That is an example of clinicians recommending perhaps unnecessary surgery to line their pockets. Not the same thing at all.

 

I'm not pretending that the NHS is anything other than a fine institution, the envy of the world, that provides treatment regardless of the circumstances of the individual. It never pretends to be perfect but its moral and altruistic foundations are to be applauded.

 

And I'm bloody proud of that.

[revolution saint]

Can't argue with that

 

 

 

A good friend of mine is a GP and a partner in the practice. His earnings have more than doubled to over £150,000 per annum over the last 10 years. Many surgeries are renumerated/incetivsed based on treating people with one of ten named ailments/illnesses. Therefore, he is more keen to treat one of those "on the list" as he has targets to hit and at the same time gets well rewarded for hitting them. How is this any different to the Canadian example you cited....and this is happending within our morally superior and beloved NHS - driven by a central policy from the beloved socialists in whitehall.

 

As I keep saying, the NHS is better than no NHS, but stop pretending it is somthing which it is clearly not.

 

It's not socialism....how is incentivising people to do their job socialist? I thought it was about distribution of wealth? It sounds to me as if you'd rather return to the roots of the NHS as it was when it first started (ironically by a socialist labour party).

Edited 13 August, 2009 by revolution saint

[solentstars]

.... and in the same report (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/799444.stm) France is ranked first.

 

But in France, you have to pay when you see a GP, so your point is?????

 

i don,t believe in france you would get charged just to see a docter and can not find it in that article.

[Johnny Bognor]

It's not socialism....how is incentivising people to do their job socialist? I thought it was about distribution of wealth? It sounds to me as if you'd rather return to the roots of the NHS as it was when it first started

I actually like the French system, which incidentally is ranked the best in the world.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm

 

It is essentially a mix of public and private funding.

 

 

(ironically by a socialist labour party).

 

Labour are often credited with the creation of the NHS and the Welfare state, but for socialists out there, I challenge you to read Winston Churchill's 1945 election manifesto - please read the sections on National Insurance, Health and Education.

 

http://www.conservative-party.net/ma...anifesto.shtml

 

If you can't be bothered to read it, here are the key points:

 

Health

The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them. We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation; and to introduce legislation for this purpose in the new Parliament.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

. . .

Isn't it about whether it's true or not that the NHS would refuse certain treatment for elderly patients?

 

I am able to comment on this particular point, you may draw your own conclusion from what I am going to recount.

 

My Dad, when aged 69, was diagnosed with cancer of the prostate. He was referred to a consultant, prior to the operation, to have the whole process of the operation explained to him. the consultant told my Dad, quite clearly, that he was lucky he was not 70 as they would have not operated but would have chosen an alternative treatment.

 

Dad has made a full recovery, this was 8 years ago, and leads a very active life.

 

I still can't quite get to grips with the consultant's comment. Was it his opinion? NHS Policy? Or why that decision would be made.

 

I'm just glad that Dad was not 70!

 

As to the comment, being attributed to lefties, that NHS treatment is free ?

 

It's free at the point of provision, even this old lefty knows that!

[Johnny Bognor]

i don,t believe in france you would get charged just to see a docter and can not find it in that article.

 

See section of fees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_France

http://about-france.com/medical-help.htm

 

 

€22 to see a GP.

 

You pay it and the state refund 70%........

 

It seems the best system in the world is actually a combination of the US and UK systems.

 

 

As to the comment, being attributed to lefties, that NHS treatment is free ?

 

It's free at the point of provision, even this old lefty knows that!

 

I ate a sandwich for lunch which was FREE at the point of consumption......still had to pay for it though

Edited 13 August, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[solentstars]

It's not socialism....how is incentivising people to do their job socialist? I thought it was about distribution of wealth? It sounds to me as if you'd rather return to the roots of the NHS as it was when it first started (ironically by a socialist labour party).

i agree

i laugh at the term socialist it sounds so outdated these days unless you are a die hard tory.

it was william beveridge plan the economist gives details of his radical plans for economic and social reform in post-war Britain. He proposes major social changes on the basis that we need 'the abolition of want before the enjoyment of comfort' and suggests 'a scheme of medical treatment of every kind for everybody', social security benefits and state pension provision.

our brave soldiers and people of this country did not want to go back to pre war conditions of squalor a condition of filth, wretchedness, or misery.

it was supported by all partys at the time and the welfare state was formed.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

 

As to the comment, being attributed to lefties, that NHS treatment is free ?

 

It's free at the point of provision, even this old lefty knows that!

 

..

 

I ate a sandwich for lunch which was FREE at the point of consumption......still had to pay for it though

 

Thank you for reinforcing my point. Although I was of the opinion that my fellow members were aware that NHS treatment comes prepaid!

[bridge too far]

ESB - do you think maybe the consultant referred to alternative treatment to surgery for the over 70s because it would be less risky? Surgeons are reluctant to operate on the elderly because of the many risks associated with age.

 

Having said that, I know of two men over 70 who have had surgery for this condition, although again prevention is targeted with awareness campaigns and routine screening. I think some prostate cancers are benign and can be treated non-invasively? I don't know much about 'man bits'.

 

Before she died, my mother was diagnosed with a degenerative condition of the spine. Although she was in a lot of pain, the surgeon said the risks of her surviving a procedure to fuse the spine outweighed any potential benefit that could have accrued.

[OldNick]

I thought it was set up to provide health care? Where did Nye Bevin state "We now have a health care service for all, well i say all but I really mean the terminal and life threatening things - the rest of you with minor ailments can **** off".

 

I've had ingrowing toenails, tonsils, adenoids and a hernia treated. None of them life threatening though.

i dont know your personal position but when Nye Bevan said all those things all those years ago the furtherest thing from his mind I expect was boob jobs and sex changes. It is a nonsense that people are working their butts off then taxed so people can have these things done.Dont give me the mental anxiety stuff, it is a nonsense. The other illnessses that is fine but the cosmetic stuff should have a line put through it period.

i agree with BTF that wealth should not be an issue when it comes to health care but there should be boundaries that this takes in

[revolution saint]

I actually like the French system, which incidentally is ranked the best in the world.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm

 

It is essentially a mix of public and private funding.

 

 

 

 

Labour are often credited with the creation of the NHS and the Welfare state, but for socialists out there, I challenge you to read Winston Churchill's 1945 election manifesto - please read the sections on National Insurance, Health and Education.

 

http://www.conservative-party.net/ma...anifesto.shtml

 

If you can't be bothered to read it, here are the key points:

 

Health

The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them. We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation; and to introduce legislation for this purpose in the new Parliament.

 

I haven't commented on the French system, I'm not sure why you quoted me on that. You neatly sidestepped the question of why you feel the NHS problems are because they are too socialist though.

 

You're right about Churchill though - he did propose the NHS but only because of the Beveridge report (Beveridge was actually a liberal though) and labour proposals. In any case it doesn't matter because it was the Atlee government that did implement the NHS - there's no way of knowing whether Churchill would or wouldn't though and it doesn't really matter does it? I'll think you'll find that Attlee and particularly Bevin were far more enthusaistic than Churchill though which resulted in a landslide victory for Labour despite Churchill having just emerged victorious from the 2nd world war. As I say, it's irrelevant but worth pointing out.

[revolution saint]

i dont know your personal position but when Nye Bevan said all those things all those years ago the furtherest thing from his mind I expect was boob jobs and sex changes. It is a nonsense that people are working their butts off then taxed so people can have these things done.Dont give me the mental anxiety stuff, it is a nonsense. The other illnessses that is fine but the cosmetic stuff should have a line put through it period.

i agree with BTF that wealth should not be an issue when it comes to health care but there should be boundaries that this takes in

 

I never said it should be catered for - I was responding to the accusation that the NHS is just for terminal and life threatening illness. After that it's a grey area. Incidentally a PCT was recently defeated in court because it didn't believe it should fund sex change operations.

[solentstars]

See section of fees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_France

http://about-france.com/medical-help.htm

 

 

€22 to see a GP.

 

You pay it and the state refund 70%........

 

It seems the best system in the world is actually a combination of the US and UK systems.

 

 

 

 

I ate a sandwich for lunch which was FREE at the point of consumption......still had to pay for it though

 

that sounds a reasonable charge and you recieve most of it back but i quoted the american system in florida which was 60 dollars in 2000 ,god knows what it is now and is not refundable.

if you have cancer in the states you would find that even if you had healthcare you would not have it renewed after a certain time and would pay threw the nose with the silly sums they charge for simple operations . the french ,canadian spanish systems is what we should be looking at rather then the american system which is a failure in how its run ,and thats why it need reforming .

a lot of firms in the states would like a system based on the most countries around the world rather then medicare which loads silly costs to the employers.

[Johnny Bognor]

But, how can you go from.....

i don,t believe in france you would get charged just to see a docter and can not find it in that article.

 

to......

that sounds a reasonable charge and you recieve most of it back

 

Are you in favour of paying for GP appointments even if the charge is equivalent to about £5.50 (€22 / 1.2 x 30%)????

 

It works for the French, who have the number 1 healthcare system in the world.

 

For anyone who is interested or has the time, this is a good read......

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/saco/pdf/101_en.pdf

Edited 13 August, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[ecuk268]

But, how can you go from.....

 

 

to......

 

 

Are you in favour of paying for GP appointments even if the charge is equivalent to about £5.50 (€22 / 1.2 x 30%)????

 

It works for the French, who have the number 1 healthcare system in the world.

 

For anyone who is interested or has the time, this is a good read......

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/saco/pdf/101_en.pdf

 

This sounds like a reasonable idea. I bought my house from a GP and he told me that about 50% of the people he saw didn't need to see him, whatever they had would get better on it's own.

 

It would deter those who see their GP for trivial complaints. As long as the genuinely poor were not deterred from going to the doctor, this may work.

[bridge too far]

This sounds like a reasonable idea. I bought my house from a GP and he told me that about 50% of the people he saw didn't need to see him, whatever they had would get better on it's own.

 

It would deter those who see their GP for trivial complaints. As long as the genuinely poor were not deterred from going to the doctor, this may work.

 

I would hope that NHS Direct would help to reduce GP attendances. I know my girls use it from time to time if they're concerned about their babies.

 

But you're right to highlight the poor (and this may well include the elderly so maybe they shouldn't be charged). The less well-off tend to suffer more ill-health for a variety of reasons.

[BlakeySFC]

Apart from Americans (which i frankly can't stand) the American health care system is the big stumbling block of there "great" country...

 

If anyone's seen Michael Moore's "Sicko" you'll know what i mean, it's a flawed system...favours the rich and ditches the poor, letting a young mum's kid die because she didn't have insurance instead of treating the child.

 

In the US when you visit a hospital whether it's not "hi how can i help" it's "hi can i see your insurance card please?" even if your arm was hanging off.

 

On "Sicko" some guy sliced off his finger with a circular saw in his workshop, didn't have insurance, was rushed to the hospital and when he got there the Doctor (yes a Doctor) kindly told him that if he wanted his finger put back on it would cost $10,000 which he obviously didn't have....absolute joke.

 

Every US citizen has to pay $500-800 a month to Insurance companies that still don't cover certain injuries/diseases.

 

Say you go to the doctor in the US, you have a chest infection and he gives you a prescription...you go to the local pharmacy and they give you a bill of $130, where in good ol' England it's about £7 for the same amount.

 

An absolute disgrace, can't believe America has the audacity to offend our system when there's is such a mess it's unreal.

 

American's really are absolute f*cking pric*s it's unreal.

[Thedelldays]

if you take anything michael moore says seriously then you have problems..

 

he could make a conspiracy movie out of mother teresa

[Clapham Saint]

This sounds like a reasonable idea. I bought my house from a GP and he told me that about 50% of the people he saw didn't need to see him, whatever they had would get better on it's own.

 

It would deter those who see their GP for trivial complaints. As long as the genuinely poor were not deterred from going to the doctor, this may work.

 

Therein lies the problem. Putting in something to deter time wasters will inevitably also put off some genuinely in need. For example I'm fairly sure my grandmother would have avoided going (she has now sadly passed on) even if she was seriously ill as she would have worried about the cost.

 

Is a fine line.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

ESB - do you think maybe the consultant referred to alternative treatment to surgery for the over 70s because it would be less risky? Surgeons are reluctant to operate on the elderly because of the many risks associated with age.

 

Having said that, I know of two men over 70 who have had surgery for this condition, although again prevention is targeted with awareness campaigns and routine screening. I think some prostate cancers are benign and can be treated non-invasively? I don't know much about 'man bits'.

 

Before she died, my mother was diagnosed with a degenerative condition of the spine. Although she was in a lot of pain, the surgeon said the risks of her surviving a procedure to fuse the spine outweighed any potential benefit that could have accrued.

 

I really would like to know the answer to this, although I think that in all fairness it was probably that specific consultant's opinion. However, two of my friends, about dad's age, have since been diagnosed with the same illness. They have both told me that they had no option other than a hormone treatment which, apparently, works quite well. I do wish I had been at the consultation, if only to ask what I felt might be relevant questions and learn from the answers!

[Saint George]

The reason there's so much uproar about "Obamacare" socialist health reform here, is the current US system, though not perfect, is light years ahead of the like's of the NHS.....and for most hard working Americans, a whole lot cheaper too...(Note the hard working bit)

 

Sure, the US system doesn't cater very well for the peeps who made poor choices, the idle and work shy and ilegal immigrants but why should it? Why the hell should normal working peeps be expected to pay for the health care of the work shy?....and if the couple down the road decided to have 4 or 5 kids they cant afford, why the hell should 'I' pay for their health care???

 

We have a safety net in place that will provide a very basic level of care for the peeps who don't want to work or pay for insurance and TBF the basic level here is not much different to the 'Care for all' system on the NHS ...'Charity Hospital' in New Orleans was on a par with at a guess 30 - 40% of NHS hospitals and the replacement system will almost certainly match anything the NHS has to offer....for free

 

Pretty much every employer offers some form of paid health insurance and i'd say the average policy provided would cover around 85% of all cost's ......With a policy like that, you'd be expected to pre pay around $15 for a visit to your GP and around $30 for a visit to any 'network' specialist..(many to 'choose' from).......If your self employed or your employer does not provide health insurance then you can pay for your own plan similar to the above for around $400 a month.....Not a huge amount more than most peeps pay in the UK for NI contributions for sub standard NHS health care

 

Hospitals, test labs etc will bill you for your share (around 10 - 15% of total cost) a month or so after your treatment and most will offer payment terms if you need them

 

Its expected here that you'll get to see a specialist of 'your' choice (within reason) within a day or so....in most cases the same day and subsequent tests, blood work, Xray, MRI's etc more often than not can also be same day and with a test lab of your choice (think high street stores) Pick up the phone book and go.....In patient treatment will also be at a time of your choosing........ASAP would usually mean no more than a week or so and is more like booking a vacation than dealing with the comparative cluster**** that is the NHS

 

No big State Nanny to dictate to you...Here, 'you' make most of the choices, 'you' choose who you see and when you see them, 'you' get the results of your tests and 'you' get to have a significant input into 'your' treatment.

 

Pensioners are taken care of fairly well (compared with the NHS) via Medicaid/Medicare....I cant believe some of the things my wife's parents grumble about with that....heh a 3 week wait for something that would be 3 months in the UK!

 

Sure, the US health system has some warts that need sorting out....Existing pre conditions for one and better protection for peeps who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own....Also no one should end up with medical bills so large they're forced into bankruptcy.....

 

One things for sure though....pushing the otherwise excellent US system in the direction of the socialized NHS is 'not' the answer .....no way!...you don't move forward by dropping standards 'that' much

[Saint George]

Apart from Americans (which i frankly can't stand) the American health care system is the big stumbling block of there "great" country...

 

If anyone's seen Michael Moore's "Sicko" you'll know what i mean, it's a flawed system...favours the rich and ditches the poor, letting a young mum's kid die because she didn't have insurance instead of treating the child.

 

In the US when you visit a hospital whether it's not "hi how can i help" it's "hi can i see your insurance card please?" even if your arm was hanging off.

 

On "Sicko" some guy sliced off his finger with a circular saw in his workshop, didn't have insurance, was rushed to the hospital and when he got there the Doctor (yes a Doctor) kindly told him that if he wanted his finger put back on it would cost $10,000 which he obviously didn't have....absolute joke.

 

Every US citizen has to pay $500-800 a month to Insurance companies that still don't cover certain injuries/diseases.

 

Say you go to the doctor in the US, you have a chest infection and he gives you a prescription...you go to the local pharmacy and they give you a bill of $130, where in good ol' England it's about £7 for the same amount.

 

An absolute disgrace, can't believe America has the audacity to offend our system when there's is such a mess it's unreal.

 

American's really are absolute f*cking pric*s it's unreal.

 

 

So what comic book did you get all that info from?....."Tony & Gordies Book of porkies"?......LMAO

 

BTW how much do 'you' pay out of your pay check for your NHS erm post code health care?

[Kadeem Hardison]

Without the NHS, I would never been able to afford my sex change.

[bridge too far]

So what comic book did you get all that info from?....."Tony & Gordies Book of porkies"?......LMAO

 

BTW how much do 'you' pay out of your pay check for your NHS erm post code health care?

 

We don't. National Insurance and Taxes are not hypothecated in this way. NHS spending comes out of overall government spending.

 

And at least what we do pay will cover our treatment regardless. In other words, treatment won't be denied because we have a pre-existing condition.

[surrey1saint]

We don't. National Insurance and Taxes are not hypothecated in this way. NHS spending comes out of overall government spending.

 

And at least what we do pay will cover our treatment regardless. In other words, treatment won't be denied because we have a pre-existing condition.

 

Quite,and it won't be denied if you haven't got insurance either!

[Mao Cap]

The reason there's so much uproar about "Obamacare" socialist health reform here, is the current US system, though not perfect, is light years ahead of the like's of the NHS.....and for most hard working Americans, a whole lot cheaper too...(Note the hard working bit)

 

Sure, the US system doesn't cater very well for the peeps who made poor choices, the idle and work shy and ilegal immigrants but why should it? Why the hell should normal working peeps be expected to pay for the health care of the work shy?....and if the couple down the road decided to have 4 or 5 kids they cant afford, why the hell should 'I' pay for their health care???

 

We have a safety net in place that will provide a very basic level of care for the peeps who don't want to work or pay for insurance and TBF the basic level here is not much different to the 'Care for all' system on the NHS ...'Charity Hospital' in New Orleans was on a par with at a guess 30 - 40% of NHS hospitals and the replacement system will almost certainly match anything the NHS has to offer....for free

 

Pretty much every employer offers some form of paid health insurance and i'd say the average policy provided would cover around 85% of all cost's ......With a policy like that, you'd be expected to pre pay around $15 for a visit to your GP and around $30 for a visit to any 'network' specialist..(many to 'choose' from).......If your self employed or your employer does not provide health insurance then you can pay for your own plan similar to the above for around $400 a month.....Not a huge amount more than most peeps pay in the UK for NI contributions for sub standard NHS health care

 

Hospitals, test labs etc will bill you for your share (around 10 - 15% of total cost) a month or so after your treatment and most will offer payment terms if you need them

 

Its expected here that you'll get to see a specialist of 'your' choice (within reason) within a day or so....in most cases the same day and subsequent tests, blood work, Xray, MRI's etc more often than not can also be same day and with a test lab of your choice (think high street stores) Pick up the phone book and go.....In patient treatment will also be at a time of your choosing........ASAP would usually mean no more than a week or so and is more like booking a vacation than dealing with the comparative cluster**** that is the NHS

 

No big State Nanny to dictate to you...Here, 'you' make most of the choices, 'you' choose who you see and when you see them, 'you' get the results of your tests and 'you' get to have a significant input into 'your' treatment.

 

Pensioners are taken care of fairly well (compared with the NHS) via Medicaid/Medicare....I cant believe some of the things my wife's parents grumble about with that....heh a 3 week wait for something that would be 3 months in the UK!

 

Sure, the US health system has some warts that need sorting out....Existing pre conditions for one and better protection for peeps who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own....Also no one should end up with medical bills so large they're forced into bankruptcy.....

 

One things for sure though....pushing the otherwise excellent US system in the direction of the socialized NHS is 'not' the answer .....no way!...you don't move forward by dropping standards 'that' much

 

I would head for the hills before Big Government makes you contribute to their crazy commie schemes, my friend. Somewhere without the internet, so they can't track you down as a freedom-loving subversive.

 

Hurry, my rugged American hero! There's no time to lose!

[Danny]

I would head for the hills before Big Government makes you contribute to their crazy commie schemes, my friend. Somewhere without the internet, so they can't track you down as a freedom-loving subversive.

 

Hurry, my rugged American hero! There's no time to lose!

 

LOL.

[surrey1saint]

Saint George: How would you answer this then...found on another forum??

 

So much for your fantastic health system !

 

"As A martial artist who also frequents martial arts forums, all I can say is that I'm amazed by how many Americans put up posts saying I have hurt, broken, damaged, torn, been poked in the, sprained my arm, leg, wrist, eye, tactical what should I do, oh and I'm not insured and can't afford a doctor right now!"

[revolution saint]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/11/nhs-united-states-republican-health

 

The rightwing in America has been attacking the NHS to try and derail Obama's healthcare reforms, but some of the ******** they have come out with is just unfounded.

 

For example, one of the many lies put around about why the NHS is so bad is because they say if you are over 59 you can't get a heart bypass or operation... oh right because my Grandad wasn't 70 at the time of his triple heart bypass.

 

Apparently, also... the NHS values 6 months of life at $22,750 and if the treatment costs more than that, then they leave the person to die. What absolute ******** again.

 

The list goes on and on.

 

The NHS is one of the great things about this country, and they can make up all this crap about treatments we don't give, but I'd rather live in a country where I know I will always be treated and given a chance before my wallet is checked. Where you know you won't have to end up on the streets because your Mother contracts cancer.

 

Yes, the NHS isn't perfect, but people just don't realise how good we have it. And it's a darnsight better than what the US has. A system that works well for the rich, but forgets the poor.

 

So to sum up, the claims made about the NHS by the American far right are wrong. Sex changes on the NHS shouldn't be allowed although Kadeem is grateful that they are. The people who argue against the NHS quite like the French system where tax is higher and you pay 30% of the cost as well. The NHS is outdated and socialist (although there's no evidence to back this up and Churchill thought of it first apparently). St. George predictably likes the US system and everyone is happy he does because they don't want him back. Did that cover it all?

[BlakeySFC]

So what comic book did you get all that info from?....."Tony & Gordies Book of porkies"?......LMAO

 

BTW how much do 'you' pay out of your pay check for your NHS erm post code health care?

 

"Sicko" by Michael Moore...i believe i mentioned it in my previous post, maybe you need to go see a doctor as i see you suffer from selective reading?

[Saintandy666]

Re: Saint George on it works for the hard working person, but not the idle people who made the wrong decisions. What absolute ********! How much you earn isn't an indicator of how hard you work and what sort of person you are, alot of what you earn sadly still is influenced by where you are born and who you are.

 

So, a hard working person can afford say $40,000 for treatment, whereas a non-hardworking person can't? Not true, I'll think you'll think the average earner in America, hardworking or not wouldn't be able to afford or would struggle to afford that kind of treatemnt.

[Johnny Bognor]

We don't. National Insurance and Taxes are not hypothecated in this way. NHS spending comes out of overall government spending...........

.

 

 

.....which ultimately comes out of our pay packet. I don't always agree with St George, but we do all have to pay for it in one way or another, just as I had to pay for my sandwich........there is no such thing as a free lunch (God I am good).

[revolution saint]

.....which ultimately comes out of our pay packet. I don't always agree with St George, but we do all have to pay for it in one way or another, just as I had to pay for my sandwich........there is no such thing as a free lunch (God I am good).

 

Jesus Christ are you deliberately dense? No one, that's not one single person, ever, in the history of the world, on this planet, on this thread has ever suggested the NHS is free. No one. I really don't know how to make that any clearer.

[Johnny Bognor]

The people who argue against the NHS

 

I am not against the NHS - as I have said I would rather have an NHS as opposed to no NHS.

 

However, I am against the leftie smokescreen that perpetrates the lie that it is Free. Even BTF goes on about how it comes out of Government spending as if G Clown goes into No 10's garden to pick money off the money tree that pays for all the great work he has achieved, whilst not costing us a penny.

 

quite like the French system where tax is higher and you pay 30% of the cost as well.

 

I brought up the issue of the French system as one poster held up the NHS as a shining example of success, being 17th in the world rather than 38th (like the US system).

 

I happen to think that the number 1 system should be held up as an example, which also seems to be a comprise between the UK and US systems.

 

As it happens, the US is decidedly Championship material, whilst the NHS is hovering above the relegation places. Meanwhile the French are league champions and in the running for Champions League. Sorry about the illustration, but this is a footie website.

 

The NHS is outdated and socialist (although there's no evidence to back this up and Churchill thought of it first apparently).

 

I was merely highlighting that the welfare state was not the only brain child of the left. Did you know that the tories invented income tax coupled with subsidies for the poor? Some 60-70 years before the labour movement existed?