Author Topic: Health Care in England Question  (Read 40140 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline HondaMan

  • Someone took this pic of me before I became a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,956
  • ...not my choice, I was nicknamed...
    • Getting 'em Back on the Road
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #100 on: August 01, 2009, 11:43:07 AM »
Ed/Bobby:
You're both right, IMO...there was a lot of smarts in the "old way", now it's a lot of unmanageable confusion. It's the usual story of the pendulum having swung too far in one direction, I guess.

While I am [today labelled] a "right-wing extremist", I haven't moved from my position in the 1960s. Even then, I believed a monopoloy like the Bells and the larger Utilities were not innovating and preventing others from doing so, but were somewhat necessary for the overall organization of things. The initial surge of deregulation was correct, I believe, but like you say, it went too far, as it seemed to become almost a sect within the government.

But, what I do believe is wrong: Socialization is not the answer to the problem. There is a fundamental difference between Regulation and Socialism, and this Health Care Plan we are seeing (both the House and Senate versions, let alone the White House's poetry) right now is Socialism. I will rail against that with everything I have...
« Last Edit: August 01, 2009, 07:31:02 PM by HondaMan »
See SOHC4shop@gmail.com for info about the gadgets I make for these bikes.

The demons are repulsed when a man does good. Use that.
Blood is thicker than water, but motor oil is thicker yet...so, don't mess with my SOHC4, or I might have to hurt you.
Hondaman's creed: "Bikers are family. Treat them accordingly."

Link to Hondaman Ignition: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=67543.0

Link to My CB750 Book: https://www.lulu.com/search?adult_audience_rating=00&page=1&pageSize=10&q=my+cb750+book

Link to website: www.SOHC4shop.com

Offline MickeyX

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,153
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #101 on: August 01, 2009, 03:30:30 PM »
I finally read the healthcare thread. What a effing waste of my time. I need a shower after this.

How about people with a stubbed toe or a cut on their finger stay out of my TRAUMA ER for starters? With or without insurance, people are effing stupid and muck up the care system themselves. Go to the effing doctor, #$%*. An ER visit starts around $500 at most hospitals around the country. There is a reason for that, it is intended for serious stuff and is assumed that you are there for something serious and immediate. Versus $25 copay at the docs office for the little stuff. Still, they flock to the ER because this is the worst thing ever and they need the assistance of a trauma surgeon to put 2 stitches in their trigger finger. How about people get off their cell while driving and pay attention? Or not drive 107mph and then use the rear end of a Subaru full of innocent people to slow down? Or how about they don't stab their husband in the liver but divorce him instead when he cheats? How about they don't do backflips off the rock cliff into water, when they have no idea whether there are more rocks just under the surface? How about people with effing scooters actually learn to ride them and get a license first so they don't flip themselves down an embankment in their own driveway?

If you don't like today's care, how about we just forego all of the "expensive" modern inventions that costs university hospitals to invent in the 1st place. You do have the right to just not do it ya know. Why don't we just go back to putting people in body casts for a broken hip and take the chance of them dying from pneumonias. They'll never be able to walk on it very well even if they live through it but since they won't have the too high bills, it won't matter, right? Yes sir, it would be cheaper by tens of thousands compared to a hip replacement/fix and it would only take a mere 6-8 months to weight bear. You could go home to convalesce and save $$. Think of the fun and bonding involved in your wife wiping your ass for you while you're in the cast for that long. Imagine the stench...  :-X How about the propensity for obesity in this country? How about we don't stuff our pie holes with McDs to the point of explosion and then complain you didn't get the lunch you wanted. (to the nurse aide that is elbow deep in your rolls, trying to clean you) That was after you needed a uhaul to get you to the hospital when your bowels totally quit.

I see lots wrong on both sides of the issue. I see it upclose and personal every day. Medical people do their best to get it right and help people. It is very apparent when someone is there for the wrong reasons and they don't last. It is also apparent that our "sophisticated" society of humans, for the most part, only care about themselves and don't see what is going on around them. Like the guy who gets hit by a car on his bicycle. He had a broken hand. He drug it out, needed to be kept in the hosptial, needed attention constantly, was in soooo much pain.... he needed to be in the hospital in his mind, taking up a bed. He doesn't think who might need one of those rooms... where another guy was hit by a car on his cycle, was literally torn in 1/2, almost everything broken, machine breathing for him, in a medically induced coma until he heals enough to handle it, his mom and wife crying over him and praying he not only lives but can talk and think, maybe eventually wipe his own ass again...

I would love to see everyone have health coverage, which by the way, is different than healthcare. It has been interchanged quite often in this thread and it really isn't the same thing at all. I would also like to see go with that, people who use it responsibly so that it will actually work. Abuse is rampant by the users. If it takes the govt to get it done, instead of the citizens, then so be it. For those of you who balk at the govt getting involved, I understand your trepidation. It sucks. But I also don't see any of you out there getting it done, just griping about how it affects "YOU". Every hospital could use some volunteers ya know... Also, Ed, when you question the price of gas to someone in another country and try to link it with why our healthcare system is better somehow, just look up why our gas is cheaper... it is govt subsidy that keeps it lower here and isn't tied into the price of healthcare at all. Really.

Unbelievable dude.  ::)

As for those who think without insurance you can't get care, my hospital takes everyone. Homeless, uninsured, noncitizens... it's a non profit university hospital. Many others will defer you to one like mine so they don't have to foot the bill. Hospitals do deserve to make a profit in order to keep in business and keep being able to provide services. It's a necessary evil. The HMO owned ones are a conflict of interest. Plain and simple.

Universal healthcare has my vote. So does simple rules about how to use it so the system isn't overloaded and abused by the people. Then those who really need the extra attention and care will be able to get it quickly. All win.

Now put that cigarette down and lay off the twinkies...  ;D ;)
1969 CL350 Scrambler... almost done!!! Well, until something else goes wrong. :)
2006 HD 883 Sportster, stock. No use changing it, it's still gonna be a Harley.

Offline ev0lve

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,930
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #102 on: August 01, 2009, 04:09:25 PM »
You can have my twinkies when you pry them from my cold dead fingers.

Offline Ecosse

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,051
  • Member #4139
    • My 550 walk around video
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #103 on: August 01, 2009, 04:25:54 PM »
"I finally read the healthcare thread. What a effing waste of my time. I need a shower after this."  ;D ;D ;D  

some excellent points mickey. but what i see inherently wrong with our benevolent, honorable, and competent government handling yet more of my fate, is something that affects both you in the healthcare industry and i as an individual. what happens when the estimated 37 to 50 million (whoever numbers you care to use) are suddenly covered? isn't there a shortage of hospital beds and healthcare professionals as it is? seems to me that, unless i am missing something, "universal coverage" would overwhelm a system already over taxed... no pun intended. let the rationing begin...

to suggest that i (i know you weren't picking on specific people) don't care for my fellow human because i don't support a big lumbering apathetic (fed) bureaucracy to eff up one more aspect of my life our lives because i believe socialized healthcoverage is the worst option, misses the true picture here.

genuine respect for each and every human, as conceived in the age of enlightenment, believes that the government is the root of tyranny and only a necessary evil meant in as limited size as possible. it really is that simple.   for those who think this is some trite but antiquated philosophy deserves what government they wish for, but it's not the united states.

again, you have made some points important in this issue regarding our self absorbed, pampered culture and its corrosive effect on society, and for accurate debate the distinction between health care and coverage being key issues imo.

finally, bobby, ed, and h man's (and others) combined focus on regulation vs. dereg, plus the matter of a combined system as outlined by iggy have me wondering why i don't hear anyone in dc talking about these things. or are they?  




edited: grammar boo boo.

« Last Edit: August 03, 2009, 12:39:34 PM by Ecosse »
1974 CB550K     
                 
            Help stop TORTURE and SLAUGHTER of cats, dogs, and other kept animals.                                                  www.animalsasia.org

                                  Your 1%er name

                                                A WORTHY EFFORT: http://www.honorflight.org.

Offline Ecosse

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,051
  • Member #4139
    • My 550 walk around video
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #104 on: August 01, 2009, 04:33:18 PM »
Washington isn't listening, they seem to be Aristocracy, now.  >:(

amen!!


"elephants and asses screwing the masses"
1974 CB550K     
                 
            Help stop TORTURE and SLAUGHTER of cats, dogs, and other kept animals.                                                  www.animalsasia.org

                                  Your 1%er name

                                                A WORTHY EFFORT: http://www.honorflight.org.

Offline dpender836

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #105 on: August 01, 2009, 05:04:03 PM »
Ecosse well said :)

Offline MickeyX

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,153
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #106 on: August 01, 2009, 05:32:29 PM »
I don't think the change won't be that more will be in the hospitals and lack of beds, ecosse. At least not from my perspective. More people will come in to see a doc a tthe office while it is still managable, instead of waiting until they have to be hospitalized. They use the ER as their personal doctor now because they know they can't be turned away. That is bankrupting the system and needs to stop. It also pulls valuable resources away from the more critical stuff. So many of them could be headed off while they are still minor. Case in point, a young lady in one of our many ICUs had a tooth abcess. She didn't go to dentist cuz she thought it would cost too much. The abcess went into her face, still she didn't get seen. Then it got into her blood, down into her chest and has turned deadly. After many hours in the OR and a few chest tubes and other various iv's, I wonder how she'll feel about our bill. I also know, if she doesn't have insurance, there isn't much we can do about it. Except care for her until she can care for herself again. We'll try to get paid but ultimately, we won't. We have a hospital full of people who can't pay. Homeless, jobless, or just underpaid and had to decide between food or insurance. I've been there myself and it's tough. The accidents and tragic events are much less of a burdon to us compared to the stuff that could have been prevented and weren't. People are pretty good about getting insurance on their car or cycle, just not on themselves. Interesting, huh? We dont think twice about being made to get car insurance but making it mandatory for health insurance is a big deal.  ???
Another set of kids... parents saw the older one had a cut on her foot. Did nothing. No antibiotic cream or anything. It got so bad, she couldn't walk and ended up skipping school. School eventually investigates and they finally get sent to our children's hospital. She lost 2 toes as I recall. A few months later, her younger sister gets a cut on her finger. Same scenario until they finally bring her in to us... she lost her pointer finger and a lot of her palm. They are both under the age of 11. I was in on the hand OR and I can tell you, the surgeon was having a hard time seeing through his tears.

The hospitals will be just fine and some will have to be built. True. With the increasing population, that is going to happen anyway. It also just means you will have more to pick from and can be choosy. It's to your benefit. I wish we could do it without govt, but the insurance companies arent going to change on their own and that is where it stems. Right now, they don't have to cover anyone they don't want to. So, the higher risk ones get left to be a burdon on all of us, on top of those who just can't afford the premiums. I'm not sure that what DC is coming up with will be the ultimate answer, but it is going in the right direction for the 1st time in a long time. Read the link Kit posted. The beginning of HMOs was where a lot of this current crap started. I don't htink rushing into it and passing it for the sake of passing it is the answer. No matter how good it is, it still won't be the answer for everyone. Nothing ever is.

I'm off to see if any theatres are still carrying Star Trek. I've been working so many double shifts that I haven't had time to see it yet. It's probably on dvd by now.  :D

Edit: out of luck. I guess I'll rent something. Dang, that would have been good on big screen.
1969 CL350 Scrambler... almost done!!! Well, until something else goes wrong. :)
2006 HD 883 Sportster, stock. No use changing it, it's still gonna be a Harley.

Offline BobbyR

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 12,367
  • Proud Owner of the Babe Thread & Dirty Old Man
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #107 on: August 01, 2009, 05:41:19 PM »
I don't think the change won't be that more will be in the hospitals and lack of beds, ecosse. At least not from my perspective. More people will come in to see a doc a tthe office while it is still managable, instead of waiting until they have to be hospitalized. They use the ER as their personal doctor now because they know they can't be turned away. That is bankrupting the system and needs to stop. It also pulls valuable resources away from the more critical stuff. So many of them could be headed off while they are still minor. Case in point, a young lady in one of our many ICUs had a tooth abcess. She didn't go to dentist cuz she thought it would cost too much. The abcess went into her face, still she didn't get seen. Then it got into her blood, down into her chest and has turned deadly. After many hours in the OR and a few chest tubes and other various iv's, I wonder how she'll feel about our bill. I also know, if she doesn't have insurance, there isn't much we can do about it. Except care for her until she can care for herself again. We'll try to get paid but ultimately, we won't. We have a hospital full of people who can't pay. Homeless, jobless, or just underpaid and had to decide between food or insurance. I've been there myself and it's tough. The accidents and tragic events are much less of a burdon to us compared to the stuff that could have been prevented and weren't. People are pretty good about getting insurance on their car or cycle, just not on themselves. Interesting, huh? We dont think twice about being made to get car insurance but making it mandatory for health insurance is a big deal.  ???
Another set of kids... parents saw the older one had a cut on her foot. Did nothing. No antibiotic cream or anything. It got so bad, she couldn't walk and ended up skipping school. School eventually investigates and they finally get sent to our children's hospital. She lost 2 toes as I recall. A few months later, her younger sister gets a cut on her finger. Same scenario until they finally bring her in to us... she lost her pointer finger and a lot of her palm. They are both under the age of 11. I was in on the hand OR and I can tell you, the surgeon was having a hard time seeing through his tears.

The hospitals will be just fine and some will have to be built. True. With the increasing population, that is going to happen anyway. It also just means you will have more to pick from and can be choosy. It's to your benefit. I wish we could do it without govt, but the insurance companies arent going to change on their own and that is where it stems. Right now, they don't have to cover anyone they don't want to. So, the higher risk ones get left to be a burdon on all of us, on top of those who just can't afford the premiums. I'm not sure that what DC is coming up with will be the ultimate answer, but it is going in the right direction for the 1st time in a long time. Read the link Kit posted. The beginning of HMOs was where a lot of this current crap started. I don't htink rushing into it and passing it for the sake of passing it is the answer. No matter how good it is, it still won't be the answer for everyone. Nothing ever is.

I'm off to see if any theatres are still carrying Star Trek. I've been working so many double shifts that I haven't had time to see it yet. It's probably on dvd by now.  :D

Edit: out of luck. I guess I'll rent something. Dang, that would have been good on big screen.
+2
That is what is draining tax dollars and driving Hospitals out of business. The human misery is incaluable. Just neighborhood clinics with Nurse Practitioners could have avoided these scenarios.

If you can find Star Trek you will enjoy it. Good Luck!
Dedicated to Sgt. Howard Bruckner 1950 - 1969. KIA LONG KHANH.

But we were boys, and boys will be boys, and so they will. To us, everything was dangerous, but what of that? Had we not been made to live forever?

Offline demon78

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
  • After work to the "Wets"
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #108 on: August 02, 2009, 04:47:08 AM »
You know as a thought it may not be a crisis of health care but a crisis of people, I'm 70 and if I'm told to go to the ER I know it costs the system more than a doctors visit and I'm really reluctant to go, rather than wait for when the doc is free (it's no thruffty) and yes I see it here too, people that should be seeing a nurse practitioner or a neighbour hood clinic in the ER, whether it's because their employer won't let them off during the day or they're too lazy to go during their soap opera I have no idea, but it is thing that should be stopped whether by government regulation or an extremely nasty battlefield nurse ( you know one of the ones that sharpens the needle on the pavement be for she gives it to you). It seems that people don't think that their actions have consequences or meaning and back when I was a kid I knew if you prodded the bear you'd get eaten or smart mouthed the cop you'd get a rap in the ear at least and if you didn't watch the cut on you're hand you could get blood poisoning, all extremely painful, you also didn't laugh at the Sargeant Major (worse than laughing at god, he'd get to you before god ). I can't think that the populace has been so isolated by the politico's that they've become mindless, or that poverty has made them idiots, I do think that the only one with enough power to change the system is the government whether it's about health care or something else and I also think that you, the responsible ones have to change the governments attitudes about the governance of their citizens
Bill the demon.

Offline HondaMan

  • Someone took this pic of me before I became a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,956
  • ...not my choice, I was nicknamed...
    • Getting 'em Back on the Road
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #109 on: August 02, 2009, 08:57:35 AM »
Maybe, before y'all starting discussing (or even arguing) about this Health Care Plan, you could one-up your Representative and actually read the bill:

http://www.capwiz.com/afanet/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

That link doesn't work for me.  Besides, how can that be the bill if it isn't written yet?  Was that one of the drafts or something?


Ed;
This is a [disturbing] development that has started happening since Obama took office. This Thomas Library of Congress system has always carried the most recent version of all texts of all Bills in proposal, and also of all Bills passed within the last 12 calendar months. Since 'O' arrived, any information on this site that becomes controversial, or 'attacked' in the Press or Public, has been vanishing, leaving only an empty link behind. This never used to happen...

When you hear people and sometimes radio talk show hosts talking about the nefarious actions of this administration, you will hear about this and some other official sites like it that are being tampered with: it's not hackers from the outside, either. It's happening in Washington, where these sites are managed. It's one of those things that is causing the words like "Naziism" and "Communists" to pop up in various places, because it smacks of manipulation of the Press and other proper information channels. For many years, I have used the Thomas and other federal government sites like these (links are available at www.whitehouse.gov), but since about March of this year, many of these channels are being broken, corrupted and otherwise manipulated.

One event that happened to me while I was  reading it: the "official" election count for the presidential race last November. It is (was) a federal site where the final tally (to date) is kept public (and it included chain references to the previous 4 elections, as well): I was reading the numbers and the little articles that are attached to it, and listening to the TV about someone arguing over a certain state (don't even remember which one, now) and its returns count: I then found that state on the site and clicked the link, and the whole site went 404. For the next 3 days, I could not get the site at all. When I did finally get it again, the numbers were vastly changed in Obama's favor, and many of the articles mentioning things that might be construed as antagonistic toward him were gone altogether. I didn't go back to look at it again until December, and it was gone again. I have not been able to find it since, and it is supposed to be a permanent post.

Then I went to an independant voter watchdog site that I've monitored since the Clinton years, for another 'opinion' of the count. It shows the final counts, using the official Federal reports, assembled at the end of December. It also shows eligible voters, number of those who voted, and the final 'tally' of how many people elected [whichever official you have selected]. In the end, Obama was elected by 18% of the voting public, according to those numbers. When I looked at the general Press 'final' results, some of the newspapers were even reporting a "landslide victory" for Obama, a comment which actually made it to Denver Channel 9 News one night. How can 18% of anything be considered a landslide?

All of this kind of activity smacks of someone behind the scenes, manipulating something. IMO, it's improper, even dangerous, and I don't like it...
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 02:45:36 PM by HondaMan »
See SOHC4shop@gmail.com for info about the gadgets I make for these bikes.

The demons are repulsed when a man does good. Use that.
Blood is thicker than water, but motor oil is thicker yet...so, don't mess with my SOHC4, or I might have to hurt you.
Hondaman's creed: "Bikers are family. Treat them accordingly."

Link to Hondaman Ignition: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=67543.0

Link to My CB750 Book: https://www.lulu.com/search?adult_audience_rating=00&page=1&pageSize=10&q=my+cb750+book

Link to website: www.SOHC4shop.com

Offline ev0lve

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,930
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #110 on: August 02, 2009, 12:51:32 PM »

Maybe, before y'all starting discussing (or even arguing) about this Health Care Plan, you could one-up your Representative and actually read the bill:

http://www.capwiz.com/afanet/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

That link doesn't work for me.  Besides, how can that be the bill if it isn't written yet?  Was that one of the drafts or something?


Might as well have a working link.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

Hmmmm, my browser really doesn't want to use the final colon in the url above. Dropping it into an url tag makes it work.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 01:11:29 PM by Iggy »

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #111 on: August 03, 2009, 11:15:17 AM »
Thanks for re-posting that working link Iggy.  Amazingly, reading that bill is almost as useless as not having access to it in the first place.  It contains almost 2600 sections in its current form and is well over 1000 pages.  I'd defy any one of our paid representatives whose SOLE job it is to write (and read) this legislation whether they've read even 10% of it.  Nice tactic that.  Keep us all in the dark with baffling bull#$%*.

MickeyX, I applaud your hard work and your spirit of caring about your patients and your job.  I definitely value your experience and your perspective.  It is very clear that you are a dedicated and caring individual.

I'm especially fond of your suggestions that people who don't belong in the ER should go get treated elsewhere.  I haven't seen this so much in suburbia, but I've seen this myself in the Bronx.  I've seen where the ER is jam-packed with kids who have a sniffle or a cough.  I'm well aware that this is a HUGE waste of resources.  The problem is, these parents are typically covered by Medicaid (or at least eligible, if they would bother to walk in and have an application filled out for them), but they don't go to the clinics that exist and that accept Medicaid.  I've seen them walk right past the local clinic where they can sit in the waiting room and eventually see a doctor who accepts Medicaid.  Then they walk right past North Central Bronx Hospital's Emergency Room (public NYC run hospital) and they walk two blocks up to Montefiore Hospital's emergency room (Private hospital).  I suspect they do it because they know that they'll get better treatment at the private hospital than at the city run hospital and the Medicaid-accepting clinic, plus they know that they cannot be turned away.

How can you educate these people to not waste the resources of the hospital's ER?  The ER cannot turn them away.  Or can they?  Why can't the hospital simply say "hey, turn around and go to the clinic two blocks down, they'll take adequate care of you"?

I had another experience when I lived in Manhattan.  I was bleeding the brake on my CB550 (SOHC4 content, WOW!!!), and made the dumb mistake of looking right into the reservoir when I squeezed the brake lever, which caused brake fluid to squirt right into my eye.  I quickly wiped up with a rag, and then walked rapidly down the street to New York Presbyterian Hospital (EXCELLENT, private hospital).  I checked into the ER, thinking that I might end up blind or something.  I met with the triage nurse who took my vitals, and advised me to sit and wait for a doctor, who would be with me shortly.  After sitting there for an hour, I finally went up to the nurse and asked her whether this was even considered an emergency since there seemed to be no urgency to treat me.  I told her that if this was such a minor issue that I could sit here for all this time, then maybe I should just go home and flush my eye out with cold water.

The nurse said she would check with a doctor and get back to me.  A minute later she came out and said that all the doctor planned to do was flush my eye out with water (or maybe saline or something).  I signed myself out, went home immediately, and flushed my eye out with an eye wash that I bought at the local pharmacy.

Duh.  Why didn't they just tell me that in the first place?  Is it a profit motive to keep me there so they could bill my insurance company rather than send me home to treat myself?  Were they afraid to turn me away, because if I didn't see a doctor and later sued them, the hospital would have to pay a blind 25 year old a fortune?  Are our hospitals so afraid of the malpractice lawyers that they simply can't send non-urgent patients away to more appropriate healthcare centers for treatment?  Are they just so overwhelmed with work and so deep in the day-in and day-out problems of treating people that they just didn't have time to think this class of problem through?  I suspect that they just can't see the forest through the trees, like so many of us who get wrapped up in our own day-to-day issues.

Several pages ago, I mentioned that my health insurance company had set up a hotline for me to call a Nurse Practitioner to find out whether my issue was an urgent one requiring even an office visit, an ER visit, or a simple over-the-counter treatment that I could pick up and use without bothering any doctors.  I think that this was a genius cost-cutting measure, and that if something like this was more widespread (dial 711 or something), the health-care industry could save BILLIONS (and eventually TRILLIONS).  THAT is an initiative that I can see asking the taxpayer to pay for.

A ways back I also mentioned that we have two different types of problems in healthcare.  One is the typical simple stuff like common infections, simple breaks, diabetes treatments, common viruses, and other run-of-the-mill ailments that can be resolved or managed without too much muss-and-fuss.  This class of medical concerns is a well-defined set of problems with relatively simple solutions that can be implemented quite efficiently without too much drama.  This is the class of medical treatment that I feel the "millions of uninsured" can benefit from the most.

But we also have some serious diseases and chronic conditions like cancer, HIV, complex traumas, compound fractures, etc., that require much more in the way of research and innovation so that one day we might find cures and more effective treatments.  This class of medical care is much more complex than anything the government has demonstrated any competence at handling.  This is the group of issues that I fear the government will NEVER get right.

Also, the question still stands, WHY CAN'T THE GOVERNMENT GET IT RIGHT WITH MEDICAID, MEDICARE AND VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITALS?  Why should we throw more good money after bad, asking the government fix what they've already proven that they can only break?

Why do Medicaid recipients get car service delivery to the hospital for regularly scheduled treatments like chemotherapy, when privately insured patients have to fend for themselves?

Whey do Medicaid recipients get elective surgeries like stomach stabling and lap-bands paid for, whereas privately insured patients do not?

Maybe if we fixed some of these problems in Medicaid, Medicare and VA Hospitals, then a huge chunk of the uninsured would have coverage without any negative impact to those that are currently insured, and no additional taxes.

As for fuel subsidies, MickeyX, I've done some research and have some more information for you.  Yes, as you know, the US does subsidize exploration and technological innovation in the fuel industry.  So does the rest of the industrialized world, including the UK, in relative proportion to the US based on population.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  In fact, this provides a huge benefit to all of us.  I don't understand why anybody would want this subsidized research and exploration to stop, as that would surely mean that fewer improvements would result.  My research has shown that many are trying to paint this as "subsidies for big oil profits", and somehow "evil" in nature, but once again, there is this splitting, black/white, good/bad, abnormal psychology at work here.  Much of this research goes into ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is clearly a good thing, and is pivotal to our long-term economic growth.

Taxes on gasoline in the UK are completely excessive and they are insidious in the economy.  When you tax gasoline, whether or not you claim that it is in order to penalize consumption, you are taxing EVERYTHING.  Food is delivered by truck.  Furniture is delivered by truck.  Workers are delivered by bus, car, taxi, boat, etc.  EVERYTHING is more costly, and what you have really accomplished is nothing more than taxing people to generate revenue, in order to fund projects including NHC.  Only a small portion of our transportation is elastic.  The rest of it won't ever go away no matter how high you tax the fuel.  We just NEED TO EAT.  It is ingenious that some governments frame these taxes in such a way that they make the consumers feel guilty about their use of fossil fuels, but it is simply not accurate for the majority of the fuel use.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2009, 11:21:40 AM by edbikerii »
SOHC4 #289
1977 CB550K - SOLD
1997 YAMAHA XJ600S - SOLD
1986 GL1200I - SOLD
2004 BMW R1150R

Jetting: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg258435#msg258435
Needles:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg253711#msg253711

kedwards

  • Guest
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #112 on: August 03, 2009, 12:18:20 PM »
As a Brit i can definitely say healthcare in the uk is a post code lottery unless you are not a Brit , i can vouch for this as twenty five years ago i was seriously ill , i had been working with toxic metals for a U.S company in the uk , i related all my symptons to my doctor told him what i had been working with he and other doctors refused to refer me to a specialist or order test's to be carried out as testing for toxic materials was to expensive (arrogant pigs ). So i ended up having samples sent to the U.S where the diagnosis was mercury poisoning it took just two weeks . I Had been going to my own doctor for about eight months. it took about two years to recover and the U.S company i worked for paid for all the treatment and compensatated me .Something that would never have happened had i worked for a Brit company. so the answer to the original question from a personal point of view is , if you want priority healthcare in the uk either become a criminal or be a non taxpaying foreigner because they get it first.

Offline Ecosse

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,051
  • Member #4139
    • My 550 walk around video
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #113 on: August 03, 2009, 12:37:21 PM »
firstly, welcome to the forum kedwards.

second, i'm glad you were able to recover and be compensated.
1974 CB550K     
                 
            Help stop TORTURE and SLAUGHTER of cats, dogs, and other kept animals.                                                  www.animalsasia.org

                                  Your 1%er name

                                                A WORTHY EFFORT: http://www.honorflight.org.

Offline BobbyR

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 12,367
  • Proud Owner of the Babe Thread & Dirty Old Man
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #114 on: August 03, 2009, 05:30:09 PM »
firstly, welcome to the forum kedwards.

second, i'm glad you were able to recover and be compensated.

Welcome and glad you recovered.
Dedicated to Sgt. Howard Bruckner 1950 - 1969. KIA LONG KHANH.

But we were boys, and boys will be boys, and so they will. To us, everything was dangerous, but what of that? Had we not been made to live forever?

Offline Bob Wessner

  • "Carbs Suck!"
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,079
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #115 on: August 03, 2009, 07:18:38 PM »

Whey do Medicaid recipients get elective surgeries like stomach stabling and lap-bands paid for, whereas privately insured patients do not?


Have you an example of this? Generally, these are not elective procedures and most plans, even private, don't cover them unless the group specifies them and then the premiums are increased accordingly. Medical necessity maybe, but elective??
We'll all be someone else's PO some day.

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #116 on: August 03, 2009, 07:39:24 PM »
Example?  I personally know one person, a NYC Police Officer, who was in dire need of lap-band surgery as he weighed 340lbs, and was suffering from Sleep Apnea.  His doctors referred him for a lap-band, but his private insurance denied him the surgery.  He flew to Mexico and had the surgery done there at his own expense.  Within a month of the original surgery, he had complications that necessitated another surgery and that the lap-band be replaced.  This was covered on his insurance plan because it was an emergency.

His sister, who was (and still is) on Medicaid, was approved and received her lap-band surgery, paid for by Medicaid, in the state of Florida.  Unfortunately, I had to hear quite a mouthful from my friend who had to lay out the cash himself, and risk his life more in Mexico getting this surgery, all the while he was working.  In the meantime, his sister, who had (has) no job, was collecting welfare and on Medicaid, was able to get this surgery paid for at no expense to her.

Frankly, considering the weights of these two, they were both in danger of death by sudden heart attack.  These were both, in my opinion, medically necessary.


Whey do Medicaid recipients get elective surgeries like stomach stabling and lap-bands paid for, whereas privately insured patients do not?


Have you an example of this? Generally, these are not elective procedures and most plans, even private, don't cover them unless the group specifies them and then the premiums are increased accordingly. Medical necessity maybe, but elective??
SOHC4 #289
1977 CB550K - SOLD
1997 YAMAHA XJ600S - SOLD
1986 GL1200I - SOLD
2004 BMW R1150R

Jetting: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg258435#msg258435
Needles:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg253711#msg253711

Offline BobbyR

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 12,367
  • Proud Owner of the Babe Thread & Dirty Old Man
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #117 on: August 03, 2009, 08:17:44 PM »
Example?  I personally know one person, a NYC Police Officer, who was in dire need of lap-band surgery as he weighed 340lbs, and was suffering from Sleep Apnea.  His doctors referred him for a lap-band, but his private insurance denied him the surgery.  He flew to Mexico and had the surgery done there at his own expense.  Within a month of the original surgery, he had complications that necessitated another surgery and that the lap-band be replaced.  This was covered on his insurance plan because it was an emergency.

His sister, who was (and still is) on Medicaid, was approved and received her lap-band surgery, paid for by Medicaid, in the state of Florida.  Unfortunately, I had to hear quite a mouthful from my friend who had to lay out the cash himself, and risk his life more in Mexico getting this surgery, all the while he was working.  In the meantime, his sister, who had (has) no job, was collecting welfare and on Medicaid, was able to get this surgery paid for at no expense to her.

Frankly, considering the weights of these two, they were both in danger of death by sudden heart attack.  These were both, in my opinion, medically necessary.


Whey do Medicaid recipients get elective surgeries like stomach stabling and lap-bands paid for, whereas privately insured patients do not?


Have you an example of this? Generally, these are not elective procedures and most plans, even private, don't cover them unless the group specifies them and then the premiums are increased accordingly. Medical necessity maybe, but elective??
So let's see we have a guy who is denied a life preserving operation by his benevolent private insurance company. He has to go to a third world country and gets mortally ill and his company now has to spend a bunch to save his life. The City pays him full taxpayer paid salary while he is out sick. His sister gets the simple procedure in the pinko State of Florida, so perhaps she does not spend months in the Hospital in the future with weight related issues.
Dedicated to Sgt. Howard Bruckner 1950 - 1969. KIA LONG KHANH.

But we were boys, and boys will be boys, and so they will. To us, everything was dangerous, but what of that? Had we not been made to live forever?

Offline Ecosse

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,051
  • Member #4139
    • My 550 walk around video
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #118 on: August 03, 2009, 08:35:19 PM »
nobody disagrees the system is broken but replacing it with something clearly worse, blatantly counter to the ethos responsible for creating the most affluent and powerful country in the modern age, is not the answer either.

the system is broken but not beyond repair. seems to me ed's example shows the waste of an entitlement society where many now think a tummy tuck is their constitutional right.  
1974 CB550K     
                 
            Help stop TORTURE and SLAUGHTER of cats, dogs, and other kept animals.                                                  www.animalsasia.org

                                  Your 1%er name

                                                A WORTHY EFFORT: http://www.honorflight.org.

Offline ev0lve

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,930
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #119 on: August 03, 2009, 10:08:29 PM »
blatantly counter to the ethos responsible for creating the most affluent and powerful country in the modern age

This is a judgement call and I can respect it but let's not confuse the sentiment expressed with being a guide to a good solution that acknowledges people do irrational things (like not becoming rich enough or smart enough to acquire reasonable health care).

I was just watching this on the Seattle channel and, although off-topic somewhat, is illustrative of pragmatism vs doctrine.

Wet housing for chronic alcoholics - gee, it works AND it's cheaper than ignoring or jailing them...
http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos/video.asp?ID=3060915

Offline DammitDan

  • Prodigal Son
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,470
  • It lives!
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #120 on: August 03, 2009, 10:44:58 PM »
So let's see we have a guy who is denied a life preserving operation by his benevolent private insurance company. He has to go to a third world country and gets mortally ill and his company now has to spend a bunch to save his life. The City pays him full taxpayer paid salary while he is out sick. His sister gets the simple procedure in the pinko State of Florida, so perhaps she does not spend months in the Hospital in the future with weight related issues.

I think that sums it up pretty nicely.

Also, the question still stands, WHY CAN'T THE GOVERNMENT GET IT RIGHT WITH MEDICAID, MEDICARE AND VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITALS?  Why should we throw more good money after bad, asking the government fix what they've already proven that they can only break?

Why do Medicaid recipients get car service delivery to the hospital for regularly scheduled treatments like chemotherapy, when privately insured patients have to fend for themselves?

Whey do Medicaid recipients get elective surgeries like stomach stabling and lap-bands paid for, whereas privately insured patients do not?

Maybe if we fixed some of these problems in Medicaid, Medicare and VA Hospitals, then a huge chunk of the uninsured would have coverage without any negative impact to those that are currently insured, and no additional taxes.

These "problems" you have stated seem more to be with private insurance than with a government-funded health plan.

Besides, demanding proof that the government isn't trying to screw up and decrying that proof as being "useless" because it's "too long and complicated"...  Sheesh!  I would certainly hope that a healthcare plan so important and game-changing as this wouldn't be an easy five-minute read. 

I'll bet you thought the Republican's 17-page budget submitted earlier this year (with no numbers or real content) was a great idea, too...
CB750K4

kedwards

  • Guest
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #121 on: August 04, 2009, 05:04:32 AM »
Cheers guys ,  will never be 100% healthy again , but i'm fit enough to ride my bike , a life long passion .The systems are broken , corporate business is partly to blame , but the buck needs to stop at respective governments , they are supposedly elected to serve the people but we see a lot of these getting fat on the tax payers , it's a world wide problem.

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #122 on: August 04, 2009, 05:31:35 AM »
All in the name of shoving less food down their gullets.  That is all a lap-band does, after all.  It does nothing but limit the amount of food one can ingest -- nothing more.

An office visit to a doctor costs ~$200, then her $40,000 taxpayer-funded lap-band surgery to limit her self-inflicted gluttony prevented 200 other patients from visiting doctors for lifesaving treatments like antibiotics, preventive care, birth control, diet counseling, even just regular checkups, etc., etc.

At what point do we, the lowly taxpayers, have the gall to ask welfare recipients to take a little responsibility for their own lives?  Ironic, isn't it, that if we fail to pay taxes on money we've earned through our hard work, that the government will promptly jail us, but welfare recipients are not even asked to control their eating habits.

Then, there are some that have the nerve to say that we, the hard-working taxpayers who are bearing all of the burden in our society, are being selfish by not wanting to be taxed even more.  Ridiculous.


So let's see we have a guy who is denied a life preserving operation by his benevolent private insurance company. He has to go to a third world country and gets mortally ill and his company now has to spend a bunch to save his life. The City pays him full taxpayer paid salary while he is out sick. His sister gets the simple procedure in the pinko State of Florida, so perhaps she does not spend months in the Hospital in the future with weight related issues.
SOHC4 #289
1977 CB550K - SOLD
1997 YAMAHA XJ600S - SOLD
1986 GL1200I - SOLD
2004 BMW R1150R

Jetting: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg258435#msg258435
Needles:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg253711#msg253711

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #123 on: August 04, 2009, 05:55:26 AM »
SOHC4 #289
1977 CB550K - SOLD
1997 YAMAHA XJ600S - SOLD
1986 GL1200I - SOLD
2004 BMW R1150R

Jetting: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg258435#msg258435
Needles:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg253711#msg253711

Offline ev0lve

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,930
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #124 on: August 04, 2009, 07:13:26 AM »
At what point do we, the lowly taxpayers, have the gall to ask welfare recipients to take a little responsibility for their own lives?  Ironic, isn't it, that if we fail to pay taxes on money we've earned through our hard work, that the government will promptly jail us, but welfare recipients are not even asked to control their eating habits.

Then, there are some that have the nerve to say that we, the hard-working taxpayers who are bearing all of the burden in our society, are being selfish by not wanting to be taxed even more.  Ridiculous.


There's the point. It's always that point. Personal responsibility. The fact is people will overeat, shoot drugs, ride motorcycles, jump off bridges into shallow water, smoke, etc, etc, etc.

The difference is in whether to punish folks for this behavior punitively by, say, letting them die, go homeless, end up in jail - or treating their stupidity in the most cost advantageous way assuming that there will ALWAYS be folks making dumb decisions. That's just a basic world-view difference and it's probably not reconcilable here or in congress currently.