Topic: Health Care in England Question

[Inigo Montoya]

That would be an awesome thing to have. All politicians should have limits.

[ev0lve]

What is your direct experience with the system in the Netherlands?  I've heard nothing about their system, and don't know how satisfied the participants are, so I cannot comment.  

You can read the post I made detailing it  
http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=55553.msg603272#msg603272

The WHO ranks them at 17 but I'm less concerned with that than with the manner in which it's implemented.

I have to wonder if their solutions will apply to our problems, however.  First off, they have only 16 million citizens.  Over 80% of their population are ethnic Dutch, which implies to me that they have similar morality, work ethic, etc. to each other.  With the kind of diversity that we have in the United States, we will always have significant disagreement over work habits, fairness, morality, drug use, risk tolerance, etc.

My take is most of that is irrelevant to the system they setup; mostly they wanted to maintain competition (market incentives they call it) while ensuring total coverage for their citizens.

However, I'm sure there are some aspects of their system that might be superior.  It is certainly worthwhile to consider, but I know nothing about it.

Well... take a look. I think they have some good ideas.

I absolutely agree that we should have more choice about healthcare rather than relying upon our employers, too.  Of course I expect that if my employer doesn't have benefits that they must pay me more than one who does.  Then I choose which employer I'd rather work for.  I've done the independent contractor thing, too, and simply requested more money to offset my insurance costs.  INDIVIDUALS should be permitted a tax deduction as well as their employers, if they choose to purchase it.  

These are luxuries few of us has. Choosing your employer amongst many competing for you is a nice position to be in.

I already posted about liking the way the Netherlands does it. Everyone gets covered. Private systems stay private. Profit motive intact if curbed a little. Reason to not insure folks removed.

It looks very much like a win/win/win to me.

And I still think getting your health insurance from your employer is a dumb way to do it. Better to pay me more and mandate I'll buy insurance at the VERY least than to burden the employer with it (or let them slip through the under 32 hour a month week (more coffee please) loophole depending on how you want to look at it).

As disclosure I'm one of the folks this particular system is not working relatively well for at the moment. I'm just lucky it's not a critical moment or I might be pissed - like 11 million uninsured and who knows how many underinsured folks out there.

[edbikerii]

Buffett: "We're going to be crushed under mountain of debt":

http://finance.yahoo.com/techticker/article/306287/Buffett:-We're-Going-to-Be-Crushed-Under-Mountain-of-Debt

[Ecosse]

Buffett: "We're going to be crushed under mountain of debt":
http://finance.yahoo.com/techticker/article/306287/Buffett:-We're-Going-to-Be-Crushed-Under-Mountain-of-Debt

come on ed, those smart people in dc assure us that the best way to get out of debt is to spend more money!

below video is dated but what fred says is still relevant.

[BobbyR]

;

[Inigo Montoya]

DAMN that was a double yawn. Must be really tires of all this!

[BeSeeingYou]

DAMN that was a double yawn. Must be really tires of all this!

This is funny in another way for anyone who remembers Fred Thompson's sleepwalking performance during the republican primary.  Hey, isn't he one of those Hollywood elites the conservatives are always warning us about?

[edbikerii]

Hey, anybody ever get a second opinion?

Under the UK's NHS socialized, single-payer system, "you do not have a legal right to a second opinion".  But "you have the right to ask for one", which may be refused.  From NHS website:

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/910.aspx?CategoryID=68&SubCategoryID=156

According to the NHS, a second opionion is "rarely refused".  However, it is clear that second-guessing your doctor is highly frowned upon, unlike in the US, where it is EXPECTED if you have a serious medical condition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/talking_to_your_doctor/gp_secondopinions.shtml

Personally, I view a second opinion as a RIGHT, granted to me by God, not as a privelege granted to people on a case-by-case basis by the government.

[edbikerii]

Great video, Ecosse.

My favorite quote:

"Not just anybody can get bailout money.  There are strict qualifications for receiving government bailout money.  Recipients must have screwed up on a monumental scale."

Funny how Fred Thompson said it back in December, but Warren Buffet was busy endorsing Obama.  Now Buffet sings the Conservative song.  Very interesting times.

Buffett: "We're going to be crushed under mountain of debt":
http://finance.yahoo.com/techticker/article/306287/Buffett:-We're-Going-to-Be-Crushed-Under-Mountain-of-Debt

come on ed, those smart people in dc assure us that the best way to get out of debt is to spend more money!

below video is dated but what fred says is still relevant.

[DammitDan]

Hey, anybody ever get a second opinion?

Under the UK's NHS socialized, single-payer system, "you do not have a legal right to a second opinion".  But "you have the right to ask for one", which may be refused.  From NHS website:

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/910.aspx?CategoryID=68&SubCategoryID=156

According to the NHS, a second opionion is "rarely refused".  However, it is clear that second-guessing your doctor is highly frowned upon, unlike in the US, where it is EXPECTED if you have a serious medical condition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/talking_to_your_doctor/gp_secondopinions.shtml

Personally, I view a second opinion as a RIGHT, granted to me by God, not as a privelege granted to people on a case-by-case basis by the government.

Ever considered that this opinion is what is WRONG with our system?

We as a culture expect to get a second opinion about medical issues even when it is unnecessary.  I was talking about this with Dad just the other day.  He said that with the majority of cases, a medial history can pinpoint a diagnosis about 90% of the time.  This is simply talking to the person and getting an idea of what their symptoms and past issues are.  Putting your hands on them (feeling for problems) bumps it up by another 5%, and getting a scan (x-ray, CT, blood work, etc.) finishes up the last 5% to near 100% diagnosis.

The problem is when a patient comes in with a sprained foot and demands an x-ray.  There are 3 questions a physician can ask to quickly diagnose whether or not the foot/ankle is broken about 95% of the time.  If the answer to these questions is no, then 95% of the time the patient won't need an x-ray.  But then you talk to your friends about it and they say, "Oh, you didn't get an x-ray?  Jeeze, why not?"  By demanding the x-ray (which the physician can't really refuse) it bumps the cost of the visit from $50 to $200.  This is effectively a 300% increase in charges to insurance which could have been avoided if not for the "second opinion" syndrome.  And in many cases, people want to skip over the "first line" 90%-of-the-time diagnosis technique and go straight to the expensive "last line" 5%-of-the-time diagnosis technique.  The "last line" technique should be used to confirm a diagnosis (after progressing in severity to need it), not create to create a diagnosis.

This is much the same with going to see a specialist, who will easily charge 300%-1000% what a GP or family practitioner would charge.  The fact is, people don't trust their doctor to know from experience what is wrong with them.  They prefer to SEE what is wrong (as per an X-Ray) rather than trusting that their doctor might simply KNOW what is wrong.

[Duke McDukiedook]

Or opt for the cadillac of scans, the dreaded, expen$$$ive MRI- wooooooooooo.....

[Retro Rocket]

Second opinions are absolutely part of being diagnosed correctly.I went to a doctor a few years ago with a funny half inch diameter "thing" on my chest, the doctor said it "didn't look too bad" and to come back in 6 months. I didn't like his opinion so i went and got a second one. To cut a long story short, the bloody "thing" was a melanoma and the second doctor removed it straight away, it had attached to my rib cage and was a couple of millimeters from having its own blood supply which would have been fatal, if i had waited 6 months i wouldn't be here now.........Second opinions save lives....

Mick

[Bob Wessner]

Second opinions are also used to deter fraud and abuse. Some procedures are abused by both specialists and subscribers. Groups can elect to have second opinions included in the group's coverage for these reasons.

[HondaMan]

Second opinions are absolutely part of being diagnosed correctly.I went to a doctor a few years ago with a funny half inch diameter "thing" on my chest, the doctor said it "didn't look too bad" and to come back in 6 months. I didn't like his opinion so i went and got a second one. To cut a long story short, the bloody "thing" was a melanoma and the second doctor removed it straight away, it had attached to my rib cage and was a couple of millimeters from having its own blood supply which would have been fatal, if i had waited 6 months i wouldn't be here now.........Second opinions save lives....

Mick

Roger that!
In 2001, I was found to have the dreaded prostate cancer. The first doctor, on Monday, said, "It grows real slow, so take some time and decide what you might want to do, surgery, radiation, or just wait to see how fast it is moving.". The second doctor, on Wednesday, said, "You're going into surgery Friday. I have a full schedule, but you need to go in NOW."

The second one was dead right: another 3 weeks and I would be dead now, as it turned out. He actually got it all, too. It was NOT slow-growing: only about 25% of them are slow. My insurance company allowed for a second opinion, but I had to pay an extra $25 for the second one. Then I had the choice of treatments, at my discretion, not theirs. This is fair: I don't think a Fed-run operation would be this flexible. They move like week-old concrete.

[edbikerii]

Here's some more trickery posing as humanitarian "reform":

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/03/news/economy/health_care_class_act.fortune/index.htm?section=money_topstories

Don't forget, once these entitlement programs are passed, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of them without a huge public outcry.  So, what kind of creative taxes do you think they'll come up with to fund this one?

[Inigo Montoya]

Hey all, what insurance do your parents have?

How much should a person expect to pay for coverage a month?

How fast should it go up? Should it constantly go up 10% or more a year?

Is it perfectly acceptable for insurance to get so expensive that most americans cant afford it without working 3 jobs?

I think if most people ask themselves these questions, they will realize the reform is absolutely vital. Should ALL insurance be run by the govt? Maybe not but it should be an option that people have. We have options on our car insurance so why not health insurance? We should not be stuck with 1 or 2 companies based in your state. You should have the option to get insurance from anywhere in the country.

[andy750]

Hey, anybody ever get a second opinion?

Under the UK's NHS socialized, single-payer system, "you do not have a legal right to a second opinion".  

According to the NHS, a second opionion is "rarely refused".  However, it is clear that second-guessing your doctor is highly frowned upon, unlike in the US, where it is EXPECTED if you have a serious medical condition.

Oh dear....I hope you really dont believe this stuff Ed.

I know you have ZERO personal experience of what the Uk NHS is like apart from talking to a few ex-colleagues of yours and spending all your time trawling the internet looking for the BAD press reports about the NHS. You are badly misinformed about the reality on the ground. And quoting God regarding your God-given rights (whatever that means) is pointless in this case.

People like you that spread this scare-mongering BS, are dangerous as some other more gullible people might actually believe you. You remind me of those clowns on US talk radio - Limbaugh and the other wankers. Anyone with half a brain knows that 99% of what they say is utter BS and has no factual basis. They spread lies, rumours and BS. Waste of time really.

Now...I personally have had several experiences in dealing with the UK NHS having had several operations over the course of my life. I am one happy customer. I was lucky (nothing to do with God here) to grow up in the UK and benefit from FREE nationalised healthcare where I didnt have to sell my kidney just to pay for my medical expenses.  I would never need to go into debt in the UK over medical expenses. Imagine that. Just like the rest of the Western world that has some kind of nationalised healthcare system.


cheers
Andy

P.S.  Before you write your long boring rebuttal about why the US healthcare is the best and most expensive in the world...save it, dont bother...I have heard it all before. Not interested in continuing this for another 10 pages.

[demon78]

You know Andy, that's the same as our medical system you don't have to sell any body parts to pay for help, it comes out of every ones taxes and we can get secound opinions when needed, remarkable that it is reviled by some.
Bill the demon.

[edbikerii]

Andy,

I, like 87% of Americans [Gallup poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/122663/Private-Public-Health-Plan-Subscribers-Rate-Plans-Similarly.aspx?CSTS=alert, am pretty darned happy with the system we have today.  So spare me the "scare-mongering" label.  It is the liberals who have been running this scare-mongering bull about our health-care system ever since FDR.  One doesn't need to go far to find a Brit or a Canadian who is unhappy about waiting more than a month for an MRI or a CT.  Oh, I guess we won't be able to ask the Brits who had to wait months to get chemo treatments due to rationing (based on postal codes!), because most of them are dead. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5460788/Patients-with-suspected-cancer-forced-to-wait-so-NHS-targets-can-be-hit.html

Yes, I would like health care to be cheaper.  Free-market economics will make it cheaper as the costs actually become an issue, just like every other market.  Instead of stealing money from taxpayers to fund another government monolith with horrible service (like VA Hospitals for crying out loud) and no accountability, why don't those clowns in congress spend some of that "stimulus" money on useful medical research that might actually reduce the costs, and STIMULATE competition while boosting the economy at the same time?

Instead, they want to suck the life out of the middle-class while building their own little government-run empires.

I DON'T kid myself into thinking that any government-run system would ever be cheaper than free-market competition.  Only a fool would believe that!  The government is the only entity that has no accountability, and can force people to pay whether they actually receive any service or not.  If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail.  Simple as that.  It doesn't matter whether they do a good job or not.

In fact, at the cost of the current legislation in congress at $1 Trillion per year, thats a tax increase of $3,333 for every man, woman and child in this nation, with no savings whatsoever.  Of course, since only 100 Million of those 300 Million Americans actually pays taxes, that ends up being $10,000 per year in additional tax burden per taxpayer.

One of my oldest friends works at the NIH.  She assesses research projects for government grants for both private companies and educational institutions.  NOT ONE DOLLAR of the "stimulus" program has been set aside for private research into healthcare by small businesses.  NOT ONE DOLLAR.

How is that helping to bring down the costs of health care?

How is that helping to spur competition and innovation?

How is Cash for Clunkers keeping down the cost of health care?

How is 800+ pages of TARP and TALF and whatever the hell else they've squandered $1.5 Trillion of our tax money on (that's another $5000 PER PERSON in this nation) helping to keep down the cost of health care?

Hey, anybody ever get a second opinion?

Under the UK's NHS socialized, single-payer system, "you do not have a legal right to a second opinion".  

According to the NHS, a second opionion is "rarely refused".  However, it is clear that second-guessing your doctor is highly frowned upon, unlike in the US, where it is EXPECTED if you have a serious medical condition.

Oh dear....I hope you really dont believe this stuff Ed.

I know you have ZERO personal experience of what the Uk NHS is like apart from talking to a few ex-colleagues of yours and spending all your time trawling the internet looking for the BAD press reports about the NHS. You are badly misinformed about the reality on the ground. And quoting God regarding your God-given rights (whatever that means) is pointless in this case.

People like you that spread this scare-mongering BS, are dangerous as some other more gullible people might actually believe you. You remind me of those clowns on US talk radio - Limbaugh and the other wankers. Anyone with half a brain knows that 99% of what they say is utter BS and has no factual basis. They spread lies, rumours and BS. Waste of time really.

Now...I personally have had several experiences in dealing with the UK NHS having had several operations over the course of my life. I am one happy customer. I was lucky (nothing to do with God here) to grow up in the UK and benefit from FREE nationalised healthcare where I didnt have to sell my kidney just to pay for my medical expenses.  I would never need to go into debt in the UK over medical expenses. Imagine that. Just like the rest of the Western world that has some kind of nationalised healthcare system.


cheers
Andy

P.S.  Before you write your long boring rebuttal about why the US healthcare is the best and most expensive in the world...save it, dont bother...I have heard it all before. Not interested in continuing this for another 10 pages.

[andy750]

Read this for how science can bailout healthcare

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/55840/

and you are 100% wrong that no stimulus money has gone to research.

You clearly missed this and your friend at the NIH should know better  

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55588/

Your guide to NIH stimulus funds:

"In recent weeks the National Institutes of Health has been churning out new grant announcements tied to the handsome $10.4 billion sum the agency netted through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), otherwise known as the stimulus bill. "

This money is for research that has therapeutic value within 2 yrs. READ IT AGAIN, Ed - $10 billion FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH THAT HAS VALUE WITHING 2 YRS.

AGAIN -quit the scaremongering, misinformation and lies -its NOT helpful to anyone.

I told you already to stop trawling the internet for scare stories. I could find plenty regarding US healthcare but whats really the point? You can find anything on the internet to justify your position. Get in the real world and see what is actually working. The UK NHS works - just like it works in Canada, France, Holland, Australia, Japan, etc etc....and I dont believe for one moment that 87% of Americans are happy with their current health care -why then is their such demand to change it???  

cheers
Andy

[edbikerii]

You skip over what you don't want to hear, huh, Andy?  Did you not see where I specifically said for "small business"?

No, I don't think throwing more money at large educational institutions is as effective as funding innovative startups who have new, fresh ideas.  Besides, $10 Billion is a drop in the bucked of $1.5 TRILLION in stimulus money.  $10 Billion is only 20% of what Obama threw at GENERAL MOTORS.  I guess he doesn't really think health care is as important as GM.

Read this for how science can bailout healthcare

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/55840/

and you are 100% wrong that no stimulus money has gone to research.

You clearly missed this and your friend at the NIH should know better  

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55588/

Your guide to NIH stimulus funds:

"In recent weeks the National Institutes of Health has been churning out new grant announcements tied to the handsome $10.4 billion sum the agency netted through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), otherwise known as the stimulus bill. "

This money is for research that has therapeutic value within 2 yrs. READ IT AGAIN, Ed - $10 billion FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH THAT HAS VALUE WITHING 2 YRS.

AGAIN -quit the scaremongering, misinformation and lies -its NOT helpful to anyone.

I told you already to stop trawling the internet for scare stories. I could find plenty regarding US healthcare but whats really the point? You can find anything on the internet to justify your position. Get in the real world and see what is actually working. The UK NHS works - just like it works in Canada, France, Holland, Australia, Japan, etc etc....and I dont believe for one moment that 87% of Americans are happy with their current health care -why then is their such demand to change it???  

cheers
Andy

[BobbyR]

I agree with Bill. I am tired of my hard earned Tax money going to these parasites who cannot find a proper job with health Insurance.
Let em die, hopefully before they can breed more Parasites. It is simple Darwinism, only the fittest survive. We have ours, and the others only make us wait longer at traffic lights and take all the good spaces at the Malls.

All together Bill, we can build a master race. One Nation under Rush with Liberty and Justice for those who can afford it, and therefore deserve it.

Keep up the good work. We only need a few of them to do some heavy lifting and the like.  

[andy750]

You skip over what you don't want to hear, huh, Andy?  Did you not see where I specifically said for "small business"?

No, I don't think throwing more money at large educational institutions is as effective as funding innovative startups who have new, fresh ideas.  

Well thats your opinion. Considering that most new and innovative science is done at Universities and academic institutions you are clearly in the minority in your opinion. Check out who got Nobel prizes for science and medicine over the last 50 yrs. Where did they work? Universities and academic institutions. Not enough for you? Well since Nobel prizes are ONE indication of leaps and bounds in science its a pretty good indication for most.

And lets take your "small businesses" - commonly referred to as biotech startups - created by scientists from...Universities and academic institutions who are looking to make money from their scientific discoveries. Without long term investment in science in Universities and academic institutions you have nothing.

You clearly have NO idea what you are talking about here so stop the BS and let it go.

cheers
Andy

[edbikerii]

...Nobel prizes are ONE indication of leaps and bounds in science its a pretty good indication for most.

Right.  Like Al Gore's Nobel prize.

And lets take your "small businesses" - commonly referred to as biotech startups - created by scientists from...Universities and academic institutions who are looking to make money from their scientific discoveries. Without long term investment in science in Universities and academic institutions you have nothing.

Unlike Obama, I just happen to think that health care research is more important to the American people than 20% of General Motors.

Had we invested just 40% of the money that we wasted on General Motors ($20 Billion out of $50 Billion) into small businesses doing biotech research, that could have provided 200,000 medical research jobs paying $100,000/year.  I'd sooner put my money on a motivated businessman with a family and a mortgage over a stoned grad student with a trust fund any day.

[edbikerii]

Considering that most new and innovative science is done at Universities and academic institutions ...

And isn't that putting the cart before the horse, anyway?  Of course that's where the science is done, because that's where the government is spending our money.