Socialist healthcare being demonised in the US?

Originally posted by Bran Caughan
reply to post by BlueTriangle

 

I'm fed up with Americans having a go at our British health System, and quoting propaganda 'facts' that are simply not true.

Let me tell you about a 60 year old woman I know who is overweight. She had a knee replacement just 4 weeks ago and she's doing fine. She had to wait about 9 months but it didn't cost a bean. Now waiting for this may be tough but it will be done and it won't bankrupt you.


[edit on 26-10-2007 by Bran Caughan]

[edit on 26-10-2007 by Bran Caughan]

Id wipe away a tear for you, but Im too busy watching an endless parade of Europeans taking swipes at our American healthcare system.

As for the woman having to wait 9 months for knee replacement surgery, thats just revolting. How was she supposed to cope for 9 months with a bad knee? Did the docs just up her pain killers so she wouldn't feel anything? I, personally, would rather pay some amount of money and have my quality of life restored, rather then wait nearly a year for the government to get around to me.

Apparently in England, saving money on healthcare is more important than getting medical attention sooner, and getting on with your life.

Originally posted by Jadette
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

Thank you Syrinx. I think it's great when we can introduce facts.

The numbers don't sound that unreasonable. I suppose I was hoping for an easy answer, someone I could point to and say, "It's YOUR fault." I should have known better.

So really then, maybe the question is, not why does it cost so much, but how can we make it cost less?

Hi Jadette,
The #1 factor is malpractice premiuns costs. They need to be capped. I think $2million is a reasonable sum. I'm sure lawyers working on retainers would disagree.

#2 I would see if the gov't could subsidize medical school costs

my thinking is if the docs office overhead is less, and doesn't have any loans to pay off, they can charge less, and it trickles down to us.

the #3 factor is prescription drugs. when I worked on my groups renewals, nothing effected the premium I had to charge like changing the drug card. I would give drug companies maybe 3 years exclusive rights to a drug, then make it generic. I always get generics, because the law requires the generic to be exactly the same as the brand name, and it's almost always even made in the same facility ! The generics just go into a different bottle

.02

Originally posted by BloodthirstyCapitalist
Id wipe away a tear for you, but Im too busy watching an endless parade of Europeans taking swipes at our American healthcare system.

As for the woman having to wait 9 months for knee replacement surgery, thats just revolting. How was she supposed to cope for 9 months with a bad knee? Did the docs just up her pain killers so she wouldn't feel anything? I, personally, would rather pay some amount of money and have my quality of life restored, rather then wait nearly a year for the government to get around to me.

Apparently in England, saving money on healthcare is more important than getting medical attention sooner, and getting on with your life.

Yeah, I'm sure the kid with leukemia won't mind that nine-month wait, right?

I can pay for my OWN medical procedures or my OWN insurance out of my own will - I don't need the STATE to manage it for me!

I totally agree with nethrelm's comments earlier in the thread.

A friend of mine (EU citizen) recently returned to his home country in the EU. He had lived in the US the last 15 years. But he recently got a good job offer so returned.

He is amazed at how inefficient and how poor the service is in this (West) European country. He relayed to me all the hoops he has had to jump through since his wife is pregnant. All kind of regulations, issues. Just to get an appointment it's a serious hassle--ie. an appointment can only be made between 2-4pm on Tues, and then if it gets made you have to come in the next day, only on the next day and wait in line (this isn;t easy because he has to provide more notice tahn 1 day to his work). He got put on hold, couldn't get through, had a wait a week. etc. Bureaucratic bs. Then the equipment isn't as advanced, at least in the 1 local hospital he is required to go to.

He compared this to their first child which was born in the US and had no problems like this at all. Appointments were easy to make and could be made far in advance etc. He could choose from a wide variety of providers that met he and his wife's needs.

He started pro-state healthcare, but now he's completely changed after his experience. He said many of the upper income people pay extra for better healthcare, so the state healthcare is a lower standard for the middle class on down. It's not an equal or efficient system. He says they are talking about raising taxes yet again to pay for better healthcare since their system is so messed up.

My opinion is that's the practical result of the wrong principles. I think part of the problem is that many Europeans see profit as bad. This is the result of Marxist/Socialist writings/propaganda/movements stronger in Europe than in the US (many of the political parties are openly socialist). Therefore, they want to remove profit from everything.

In the US most people see profit as a reward for doing something good. So removing profit would remove the incentive to provide high quality services.

It's not a case of taking a cheap swipe at the US health system. You've just been given an example of where the British system doesn't work perhaps as well as it should. Hospital cleanliness (and the emergence of MRSA, C. Diff) is probably the number one issue over here at the moment, with waiting lists running in at a very close second. The Brit contributors have accepted that the NHS has its own problems. But I wish some of the US contributors would accept in the same way that the US system is not some paragon of virtue either. A system which denies the most basic medical treatment on the grounds that your bank account is bare & forces others into bankruptcy cannot be working right either.

Why did the lady with the knee problem have to wait so long ? Who knows ? Perhaps she only had a sore knee. Perhaps it wasn't causing her to make any great changes in her life and the doctor judged it wasn't an emergency and that she could wait. But better waiting and getting it done eventually than living with the knowledge that the procedure would never be carried out if she were a low wage earner and without insurance in the US.

Waiting lists in the UK are the result of historic underfunding, decades long, from the early 1970's to the end of the 1990's. Finally, the government in England now has various initiatives running at the moment in order to reduce waiting lists & has pledged that by the end of 2008 no-one will have to wait more than 18 weeks for any non urgent hospital procedure ... and the Scottish Government is working to abolish waiting lists altogether.

And it might surprise you to learn that the NHS is working with private health providers - which do exist over here - in order to get waiting lists down. There are private health providers here, private hospitals, medical insurance you can take out yourself of perhaps your employer might offer such insurance as part of your employment T&C's .... it's not a case of the state system or nothing at all.

As to Johnmike & kids with leukaemia waiting 9 months for treatment, that's just a ridiculous claim and one which bears no resemblance to reality. In fact in those rare cases where the NHS has exhausted its own treatment options it does occasionally fund children & their families to travel to the US for pioneering treatment.

That's actually one of the advantages of the US system. There are a few centres of excellence & with some the most advanced treatments available in the world. But will your own insurance pay for that ? A one hundred thousand dollar operation ? Or will you have to go knocking the doors of the charities in order to save your child's life ?

The British NHS has got nothing to do with us all being brainwashed by Marxist/socialist propaganda. Most Brits love the NHS because it works and it's less expensive to fund than a private insurance system. And it's not that Brits think profit is bad.

It's just that we don't think profit has any place in the provision of health care.

Originally posted by Niall197

That's actually one of the advantages of the US system. There are a few centres of excellence & with some the most advanced treatments available in the world. But will your own insurance pay for that ? A one hundred thousand dollar operation ? Or will you have to go knocking the doors of the charities in order to save your child's life ?

A few centers of excellence ? wow.
look these up

mayo clinic
clevelend clinic
boston childrens
memorial sloan kettering cancer centre
UCLA medical centre
johns hopkins


99% of policies in the US have unlimited benefits, or a $1,000,000 cap, and thats only if you don't use network doctors. The only policies that "run out" of benefits are the third rate cheap policies, and you get what you pay for with those.

a $100,000 claim is actually fairly common

most helath care related fund raisers are done for HMO patients who face rare or complex issues, and are faced with an awful decision

see a network Dr, and pay a reasonable fee (anywhere from $0 to $2,500) or go to an out of network specialist and incur the entire expense

here'e the rub. the reason the best Dr.s are more expensive is they don't take ANY insurance

why ?

if they participate in the network, they do the same work for less money. Being in the networl means agreeing to accept a pre-negotiated amount for a procedure. That's the group bargaining factor that makes our system go.

so it's physician greed that also needs to be factored into the equation

that is why people are faced with those awful decisions. See the best, and pay for it, or settle for second best, and pay very little

we can't assume all Dr's are warm hearted saints, many of them are in it for the money

don't forget that

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Did you know that in Britain, the waiting lists are so long for open heart surgery that they've taken to denying smokers? If you smoke and need heart surgery, you better fly to America or you're going to die. Did you know that hip and knee replacements are denied to overweight patients in Britain?? Guess you're going to be crippled for the rest of your life. Did you that if you're over 80 in Britain and you have a stroke you're written off and not treated?

Think I'll stick with what we have now, thanks.

Sorry, whilst I generally agreed with your post up to a point, the above paragraph just simply isn't true. Not one bit.

Waiting times are pretty low, but vary according to your area. If the wait time is longer than 6 weeks, the NHS will pay for you to go to another hospital, either in country, or if necessary, abroad to somewhere like France or Germany.

As for these supposed "cut off's" you cited. They're probably sourced from the Daily Mail..... They just are not true.

We also have the option to go private, if you like. Most people who work for a decent sized company will have private medical insurance as well. If the NHS isn't your cup of tea, or if you just can't wait a few weeks for that knee op, then you can go private and have it done in a couple of days. Again, for free, minus the small taxable deduction for the Employee benefit, which for me works out as £300/year.

Originally posted by TheMesh
If you want to criticize the USA for its system, why is it that Sweden is benefiting from the massive influx of technology developed in the USA? For example computer chips developed at Bell Labs and Intel. Computer Software developed at US corporations, medical procedures and drugs developed by US companies, and all of the technology that makes the health care you use possible... The US is just a very young country, and Europe is ancient, why are we leading the world forward with technology if our system is so bad? I don't mean to bash Sweden, there are good people there, and very productive, I just use them since you brought it up, but if the Europeans have such a great system, why do they have to use the technology developed elsewhere to make things possible for them? They should be the leaders in technology, they have such a head start with their societal system.

You make out as if all technology and progress comes from America. That is just a complete lie. I'm not going to derail the thread with an endless supply of examples and bicker with you back and forth, but I do think you need to realise that America isn't the fountain of knowledge and Humanity you paint it to be.

Originally posted by TheMesh
Instead they have virtually destroyed the infrastructure of their society with two massive world wars in the last 100 years.

One minute it's "We saved your ass in WW2" and the next it's "You make no progress and just have Wars all the time". Neither statement is true, however, and a simple study of the History and Europe would show you the true reasons behind the monstrosities that were the World Wars and, in actuality, a great deal of Scientific progress is actually made in Europe.. The USA is just better at making money off things.

Let's not slip down the road of blanket statement's, shall we? I am certainly not under the illusion that the EU is some honey laden promised land, but I also don't believe the USA is the "Beacon of Civilisation" that is promoted in the marketting campaigns.

Originally posted by Niall197
It's true, some NHS Trusts - still a small minority - are denying smokers & obese individuals operations on medical grounds ... that there's an increased risk of operative complication and poorer chances of a full post operative recovery. I

Sorry for the thirs post in a row, but I need to clarify this.

They don't "deny" treatment, but rather do not treat people with smoking related illnesses if they do not try to stop smoking, or with fat people they will deny access if they make no effort to stop eating so much. It's not a denial of service, but rather "Help us, help you". There's no point treating someone with a smoking related illness if they will only just keep on smoking.

I've yet to hear of a single case where someone was actively refused treatment.

It's not a case of taking a cheap swipe at the US health system. You've just been given an example of where the British system doesn't work perhaps as well as it should. Hospital cleanliness (and the emergence of MRSA, C. Diff)

This has been subject to media hype. You'll actually find that even in the Private sector or the Social medicine programmes across Europe and North America that the emergence of superbugs is common. It is an inevitability considering that bacteria will eventually grow immune to current sterilisation techniques, much akin to them becoming immune to Anti biotics.

The MRSA/C-Diff problem is a Western problem, not a solely UK NHS problem.

[edit on 27/10/07 by stumason]

When people in this thread say that a more social healthcare system would be paid for by the middle class, but the middle class can't afford it, and are having trouble right now, what do people mean by this?

Does it mean that you had to buy $100 dollar shoes instead of $200 shoes,
or does it mean you had trouble buying bread and milk?

reply to post by bobafett


I dont think it would need to cost anything extra at all. Just my personal opinion. The country would just need to spend less money on the military or something else and put that money to improve health care instead.

Well the U.S. system is also fundamentally flawed, it's basically subsidized by the government in a way that makes us reliant on third parties for medical procedures.

Originally posted by Copernicus
I dont think it would need to cost anything extra at all. Just my personal opinion. The country would just need to spend less money on the military or something else and put that money to improve health care instead.

There is no money to cut for spending. There is credit to cut. We have pleanty of areas we can cut credit spending. But there is no actual money to spend. everything we are spending right now...doesnt exist. Its all borrowed non existing money. Money that we don't have, but spend.

Im all for cutting programs, but how are we going to spend money on a healthcare system with money...we don't have?

reply to post by Copernicus

Socialist health care = no more money. If we had the trillions for it, then I would say yes to it. But Being that we are in 2 wars, probably 3 or more soon, and going bankrupt, where the hell is this money going to come from?

Originally posted by bobafett

Does it mean that you had to buy $100 dollar shoes instead of $200 shoes,
or does it mean you had trouble buying bread and milk?

for us, it meant...you could take your rent/mortgage payment, add your electric bill, your water, your heat/gas, car payment and insurance, gas to feed the car, so you can get to work, a modest amount for food, ect.....and in the end, you wouldn't have enough left over for a few pairs of pants for your kid bought from the local second hand shop, let alone $100 pair of shoes, not to mention the insane price for a family health insurance plan...
and at the time, our mortgate payment was less that what those hud subsidized apartments were renting out for...

and I was left laying in a bed for close to a week with a splint on my leg, arguing with some doctor about not having $2,000 downpayment for the surgery needed to fix the leg...

I'll agree we really can't afford to socialize healthcare, but, then, we can't afford those nice checks sent to haliburton either, let alone all the other lamebrained things congress comes up with to spend money on...but since it'll be people like me and you that they are gonna turn to when the bills come in, it would be nice if they just spent a little trying to make sure that the taxpayers are able to work, so they can pay the danged bill!
What the heck, they spend plenty on a group that can't/ won't work.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Socialist health care = no more money. If we had the trillions for it, then I would say yes to it. But Being that we are in 2 wars, probably 3 or more soon, and going bankrupt, where the hell is this money going to come from?

Obviously you will have to stop going to wars. You need a change in leadership, someone who refuses the New American Century and the New World Order. Someone who rebuilds America instead of making it into a third world country for the people.

You are approaching a dictatorship fast, where you will have to work for pennies in the North American Union. Your country is very rich, but your government spends it all on wars and the military and doesnt care about you at all. America has been completely sold out to the private bankers and you will never be able to pay it back. Just the interest on the money will drag your country down for decades to come.

The Bush administration has completely demolished the US. Thats the sad truth of it. And the people are too busy working and watching TV to notice how its all going to hell in a handbasket.

I really do suggest you move out of America now if you can. Its obvious to me that its going to get worse and worse. Im sorry, but that is the truth of it as I see it.


[edit on 29-10-2007 by Copernicus]

reply to post by dawnstar


I work in a Job Centre over here. I don't know what the equivalent organisation is in the US, Welfare Service ? Basically we make benefit payments to the unemployed & sick. Anyway, it's not the most well paid job.

I'm going to show you what a typical Brit pays in tax so you can see how much we're really levied for things like socialised medicine etc.

I've converted the following to $$ at a rough £1=$2. My top line every month is about $2900. From which the government last month took off ... $758 in tax & national insurance. I also have to pay council tax in addition to that (for local services) which for me comes in at $170. Those are the most obvious taxes and the ones people grumble about the most. But we've also got "stealth taxes" ... little taxes here & there that folks tend to forget about.

In my neck of the woods petrol (gasoline) is coming in right now at approx $2 per litre. That's $9.10 per gallon & most of that goes to the government in fuel tax. I get taxed at 5% on my insurances policies. We've got a purchase tax too (VAT) which is charged at either 17.5% or 5% depending on the item I buy (although I think food is exempt from that). Electricity & gas are taxed. And God forbid Grandma dies and leaves you her house. Chances are you'll pay tax on that too when you sell her house & collect her savings. In fact savings are taxed too .... they dock a % off the interest your savings collect while they're sitting in your bank account.

And all those taxes come off during the month - and you've still got to pay your mortgage, rent & all the rest on top of that .... it's a wonder I can balance my finances every month, I was actually better off 15 years ago than I am today.

But still I'm happier paying these godawful taxes in the knowledge that within 6 miles of my home we have two brand new general hospitals where treatment is free at the point of use. My local doctors surgery is moving to new premises too, in January.

I don't know if the US contributors could comfortably live with our levels of taxation. What's a typical tax take for John Doe ?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
#2 I would see if the gov't could subsidize medical school costs

my thinking is if the docs office overhead is less, and doesn't have any loans to pay off, they can charge less, and it trickles down to us.

While that is an interesting concept, would it not just make the doctors at least slightly beholden to the government and by default the drug and medical lobbyists?
After all, if you are getting through school with the help of the government, your loyalists could lie with the hand that fed you...

the #3 factor is prescription drugs. when I worked on my groups renewals, nothing effected the premium I had to charge like changing the drug card. I would give drug companies maybe 3 years exclusive rights to a drug, then make it generic. I always get generics, because the law requires the generic to be exactly the same as the brand name, and it's almost always even made in the same facility ! The generics just go into a different bottle

That is not strictly true.
The drug IS the same, but the pill make not be 100% the same.
The company that has the patent may also have a proprietary ingredient that makes the drug work better. This may not always be the case, but how would you know?
For example, Dilantin is not 100% the same as generic Phenytoin.
I know this to be a fact.
link

The Epilepsy Foundation has published a statement recommending that switches involving generic medications should not be permitted without the permission of the doctor and the patient. If you do experience seizures or other bad effects as a result of taking a generic seizure medicine, your doctor should report the problem to the FDA through its MedWatch program"
source: www.epilepsy.com...

www.foxnews.com...

While it is not true for all generics, the law of averages makes me pretty sure other generics cannot safely be replacing brand name drugs.
Always check with your doctor and/or do your own research before asking to switch.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by Copernicus
I really do suggest you move out of America now if you can. Its obvious to me that its going to get worse and worse. Im sorry, but that is the truth of it as I see it.

Never. This is our home. Everything we know or ever hoped to achive politicially was started right here. Our core beliefs are here, and no where else. I would rather stick it out fighting for it until it falls than abandon it.

We have a long way to go, yes. There are a great many problems, and right now when we look at the big picture it looks like too much to handle. We can handle it though, and we will. This form/system of government is not like european governments, canadian government, or any other in the world, at least it didn't use to be.

We believed government should stay out of our daily lives, and for good or bad, let us experience life. It wasn't always pretty, but it was always the fairest way for government to deal with people. Somewhere in the last 100 years, that was completely change, and we all suffer as a result.

We don't want nationalized healthcare, or national social security. We don't want national social programs in general. I would be tempted to tell anyone who does in this country to try one of the fine governments in europe or canada because this isn't the place for it. This country is a place where people choose to live free, take the good with the bad, and take the risk that their life could be ended shorter than intended because of that risk. We understand what it means to be free, and the risks that come with it, but as americans, we have to accept those risks because it is what makes us american.

I believe everyone in this world has the right to choose their own government, but why do people feel that they should force their government upon me and leave me with no choice? If not america, then where? There is no other true land of the free. There are a bunch of nations out there with alot of privileges out there. This country has rights. There is a difference. A difference that, although has been greatly diminished in the last 100 years, is something only america has stood for.

And I must be honest, it is the only form of government for me.

reply to post by grimreaper797


I think your post is well written and interesting, but I do sincerely believe that you are not free, and most certainly not the most free country of all.

If you define freedom as being not dependent on the government, then I guess I can see your point, since the government dont care about you and hence you are free according to that definition.

Surely you see the corruption in the government and military complex going on right now? I think its admirable to want to stay and fix it, but can you? Or has it gone too far?