Topic: Health Care in England Question

[BobbyR]

And let's not forget that the Liver Transplant surgery was developed in the United States, by Dr. Thomas Starzl of Denver, Colorado.  You probably would have been just fine if you had had your surgery here, my friend.

By the way, I'm happy that you are alive to tell us about your successful transplant, RR!

Oh Ed, unwrap yourself from the Flag. Good research goes on around the World. Comments like that is what make people think all Americans are pompous.

The discovery of penicillin is attributed to Scottish scientist and Nobel laureate Alexander Fleming in 1930.

The development of penicillin for use as a medicine is attributed to the Australian Nobel laureate Howard Walter Florey together with the German Nobel laureate Ernst Chain and the English biochemist Norman Heatley.

Here is a report on the UK System from the New England Journal of Medicine http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1702&query=home

[edbikerii]

The man said he thought he wouldn't be alive today if he had to have his liver transplant in the US.  I was simply pointing out that that statement is absolutely ridiculous.

And let's not forget that the Liver Transplant surgery was developed in the United States, by Dr. Thomas Starzl of Denver, Colorado.  You probably would have been just fine if you had had your surgery here, my friend.

By the way, I'm happy that you are alive to tell us about your successful transplant, RR!

Oh Ed, unwrap yourself from the Flag. Good research goes on around the World. Comments like that is what make people think all Americans are pompous.

The discovery of penicillin is attributed to Scottish scientist and Nobel laureate Alexander Fleming in 1930.

The development of penicillin for use as a medicine is attributed to the Australian Nobel laureate Howard Walter Florey together with the German Nobel laureate Ernst Chain and the English biochemist Norman Heatley.

Here is a report on the UK System from the New England Journal of Medicine http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1702&query=home

[Retro Rocket]

And let's not forget that the Liver Transplant surgery was developed in the United States, by Dr. Thomas Starzl of Denver, Colorado.  You probably would have been just fine if you had had your surgery here, my friend.

By the way, I'm happy that you are alive to tell us about your successful transplant, RR!

Oh Ed, unwrap yourself from the Flag. Good research goes on around the World. Comments like that is what make people think all Americans are pompous.

The discovery of penicillin is attributed to Scottish scientist and Nobel laureate Alexander Fleming in 1930.

The development of penicillin for use as a medicine is attributed to the Australian Nobel laureate Howard Walter Florey together with the German Nobel laureate Ernst Chain and the English biochemist Norman Heatley.

Here is a report on the UK System from the New England Journal of Medicine http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1702&query=home

You are spot on there Bobby. In Australia i had Doctors Faucett and Lynch do my transplant and my specialist is doctor Daryl Crawford, the 2 surgeons are or were director and deputy director of world Transplant surgery and Daryl travels the world giving and gathering knowledge on transplants, my surgeons were or are among the best in the world and if King ED knew anything about this he would already know this. Just for ED, while i was researching transplant breakthroughs i found that the US had among the worlds highest incidences of transplant rejection directly linked to the fact that post transplant patients couldn't afford their ongoing immunosupprant meds and were having their doses cut by their doctors leading to rejection, amongst the worst rates in the world. Also the DEA was charging people that were going to Canada to by cheaper drugs for their transplant, turning these poor buggers into criminals.......Maybe you should look into the feats of our doctors and scientists ED, we are at the forefront of most technologies {ask NASA} only problem we have is keeping the Technologies here is expensive so most go offshore to be developed, i'm dead serious ED, go have a read you may just learn something about another country, yes mate there are other countries that achieve a lot more than you obviously think. And yes your post reeked of arrogance and ignorance..

Mick  

[Retro Rocket]

The man said he thought he wouldn't be alive today if he had to have his liver transplant in the US.  I was simply pointing out that that statement is absolutely ridiculous.

Read above post especially rejection rates..

Mick

[edbikerii]

So, what's the problem here?  Are you saying that liver transplant surgery wasn't developed in the United States?

Sorry, but I'm not flying 20 hours to go pay high taxes in Oz when I can drive 8 miles to NY Presbyterian, and get at least equal, if not better health care.  My health insurance company covers anti-rejection drugs just fine, thank you very much.  Yes, I checked the contract on the web-site, and sure enough, it is covered.  Simple as that.

I'm not here trying to knock Australia's system.  I don't give a damn about Australia's health care system.  Australia has 20 million people.  We have more than that in the New York Tri-state area alone.  We have more illegal aliens in the United States than Australia has citizens.  Australia's health care problems are very different from those in the US.  What works in Australia is totally irrelevant to what works in the US.

I truly am happy that your experience was good, and I'm glad you are alive, but I don't see how that gives you license to go knocking our health care system, especially considering that your life-saving surgery and the anti-rejection drug you rave about were pioneered here!

And let's not forget that the Liver Transplant surgery was developed in the United States, by Dr. Thomas Starzl of Denver, Colorado.  You probably would have been just fine if you had had your surgery here, my friend.

By the way, I'm happy that you are alive to tell us about your successful transplant, RR!

Oh Ed, unwrap yourself from the Flag. Good research goes on around the World. Comments like that is what make people think all Americans are pompous.

The discovery of penicillin is attributed to Scottish scientist and Nobel laureate Alexander Fleming in 1930.

The development of penicillin for use as a medicine is attributed to the Australian Nobel laureate Howard Walter Florey together with the German Nobel laureate Ernst Chain and the English biochemist Norman Heatley.

Here is a report on the UK System from the New England Journal of Medicine http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1702&query=home

You are spot on there Bobby. In Australia i had Doctors Faucett and Lynch do my transplant and my specialist is doctor Daryl Crawford, the 2 surgeons are or were director and deputy director of world Transplant surgery and Daryl travels the world giving and gathering knowledge on transplants, my surgeons were or are among the best in the world and if King ED knew anything about this he would already know this. Just for ED, while i was researching transplant breakthroughs i found that the US had among the worlds highest incidences of transplant rejection directly linked to the fact that post transplant patients couldn't afford their ongoing immunosupprant meds and were having their doses cut by their doctors leading to rejection, amongst the worst rates in the world. Also the DEA was charging people that were going to Canada to by cheaper drugs for their transplant, turning these poor buggers into criminals.......Maybe you should look into the feats of our doctors and scientists ED, we are at the forefront of most technologies {ask NASA} only problem we have is keeping the Technologies here is expensive so most go offshore to be developed, i'm dead serious ED, go have a read you may just learn something about another country, yes mate there are other countries that achieve a lot more than you obviously think. And yes your post reeked of arrogance and ignorance..

Mick  

[Retro Rocket]

So, what's the problem here?  Are you saying that liver transplant surgery wasn't developed in the United States?

   Is that what i said....Whatever..!!   If you read what i said properly, i had a transplant method called the roux method pioneered in France, wrong again.  You also need to re read what you and I write, i couldn't give two sh1ts where the transplants were pioneered and i'm also glad your health care covers you for meds, don't loose your job, a transplant is for life......Many transplant patients can no longer work so  your simplistic views only suit what you have to say at the time. To me it looks like you google everything on the spot and go from there, my comments come from what i have been told from other transplant patients and the surgeons actually doing the transplants. Ever heard of the world transplant games ? Yes world, no just American, i have competed in those games and spoken to hundreds of patients from all round the world, have you ? I'm telling you what i know, from personal experience. Did you also know we transplant thousands of Japanese as well, now the Japanese are crazy about the US and closer to the US than we are by a long way but they come here to get their transplants done ....why is that.?  You may also be interested to know that the first transplant was done in the Czech republic in 1905, so the pioneers had nothing to do with the US, the next transplant pioneer was a Russian in 1912.  I still don't understand where you are coming from on the " I don't see how that gives you license to go knocking our health care system," Last time i looked this was a forum and that statement is kinda ironic isn't it, while you were waving your flag did you forget "freedom of speech"?  It is my opinion based on what i know as fact, like it or lump it. This next bit doesn't rate an answer,... "especially considering that your life-saving surgery and the anti-rejection drug you rave about were pioneered here!"   Good for you, if you would like a list of medical and technological breakthroughs that are currently or have been pioneered in Australia you wouldn't believe it. I am really glad that in your World the US is the centre of the universe,  in the real world it couldn't be further from the truth.
NO health care system is perfect and never will be, i'm just extremely happy with my treatment pre and post transplant, the only gripe i have is for the poor nurses and what they have to put up with, they deserve a lot more respect for what they have to do.

Mick

[BeSeeingYou]

A couple that are friends of mine have been teaching overseas in various countries for the past 20 years.  Places like China, Japan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Costa Rica, and Thailand.  They have had decent and affordable health care in the places they have been over the years.  They would come back each summer for 6 weeks so they have had some limited experience with the U.S. health care system.  Well they decided to retire and while Robert could qualify for Medicare his wife Marge was to young.  They were shocked to say the least at the premiums and lasted only one year before they went back overseas to Thailand for a few years till she can qualify.

[mark]

I'll put my 2 pennies worth in - I think most people in UK are happy with the NHS system as it is simple to understand and hassle free when you need it. The standard of care is good to excellent. The cutting edge treatments take a while to filter in to the system (and you can go private if you want for those) but on the whole the service is good......
Far from regarding the NHS as an inefficient dinosaur most people think that on the whole it does a good job and paradoxically are worried by creeping privatisation and Public/Private finance initiatives for new hospitals and reliance on private health insurance......

Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby

In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.
The rules were endorsed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and are followed by NHS hospitals.

Among babies born alive at 22 weeks, fewer than 10% survived; at 23 weeks, 53% survived; at 24 weeks, 67% survived; at 25 weeks, 82% survived; at 26 weeks, 85% survived, the study shows.

AND

But Parikh says parents are concerned about more than just a baby's survival. Premature infants are at very high risk of devastating disabilities, including paralysis, blindness, hearing loss and mental retardation. He says he looks forward to follow-up studies of babies when they are 2½ years old. By that time, doctors will have a better idea of whether the babies' survival came at a very high cost.

But we'll never know if we just let them die, will we?

(A <10% chance at 22 weeks and this one wasn't there yet.)

And there's the point... They got to choose instead of someone else making the decision for them like in the case of the premature birth in my previous post.

But you see....

She made a choice.

Private insurance is not unheard of, or banned.

She made a choice not to buy it.

Lloyd's of London will insure damned near anything, probably even heroic preemie care.

The premiums might be a bit high for someone who had miscarried four times previously - might have to be royalty to afford it. That's capitalism for you.

She still made a choice not to buy it.


You want socialized medicine to cover nothing, yet feign shock when it fails to cover everything.

You can't have it both ways.

[masonryman]

retro rocket

I am happy for your success. The arrogance and indifference In this country is unbelievable and it's not just projected at other country's or races.

We, Americans, have been filled so full of the land of opportunity crap, many  believe that anyone and everyone in the USA can be rich and have anything they want If they just work hard.

Most people here have lost their way and have no concern for anyone but themselves and nothing but whats in it for them (hey look what I have).

There are 60 million people in the USA with no Insurance at all (counting the kids of people with no insurance) and for many it is not a choice, unless you consider the choice between food and housing and insurance a choice.

[edbikerii]

Not surprisingly, I see things in almost exactly the opposite light.

I see that people today don't want to work hard to get the things that they want.  They want to get those things for "free" without doing anything themselves.  They expect the government to bail them out of the messes that they create, and they don't care to think about the hard-working people who will have to pay for their excesses.  They don't care about how much harder and longer hard-working people and their children and grandchildren will have to work to pay for their selfish laziness.  They don't care that they are taking food off of the hard-working families' tables, or making it harder for hard-working people to send their children to college.  They want to live a life of excess, and they don't care about how it gets paid for.



Oh, and today we are up to 60 million without insurance?  Damn, the liberal fear-mongering works fast.  Last fact check with the census bureau indicated that it was maybe 20 million American citizens, and every single one of them earned too much money to qualify for Medicaid.  In New Jersey, a family of four can earn over $83,000 and still qualify for basic Medicaid.  If they have an emergency medical need and no way of paying, those qualifications are basically ignored.  There are so many programs, including FamilyCare, S-CHIP, FamilyCare Advantage, NJCEED, that I'd be surprised if Bill Gates couldn't qualify for some of them if he could be bothered to apply.  Check it for yourself:

http://www.state.nj.us/humanservices/dmahs/clients/medicaid/

Heck, there's even a "Medical Emergency Payment Program for Aliens" under Medicaid.

retro rocket

I am happy for your success. The arrogance and indifference In this country is unbelievable and it's not just projected at other country's or races.

We, Americans, have been filled so full of the land of opportunity crap, many  believe that anyone and everyone in the USA can be rich and have anything they want If they just work hard.

Most people here have lost their way and have no concern for anyone but themselves and nothing but whats in it for them (hey look what I have).

There are 60 million people in the USA with no Insurance at all (counting the kids of people with no insurance) and for many it is not a choice, unless you consider the choice between food and housing and insurance a choice.

[Cvillechopper]

I would like to ask why so many seem to think that insurance is a basic right?  Insurance is a business that assumes your risk for you and you pay them to take on that risk.  Health insurance is no different than car insurance, flood insurance, home-owners insurance but some seem to think it should be.  Boggles the mind when people start assuming businesses should run at little to no profit simply because the industry they are in is an emotionally charged one.

The inevitable conclusion of the current plan is a quick slide in to decreased margins for hospitals and insurance companies alike.  Consumers will benefit in the short term but within 5 years the quality of health-care in the US will begin to decline because most providers will no longer be able to invest in new technologies and many will go out of business (think it can't happen?  look at '96 and the impact of medicare payment cutbacks).  The remaining providers (mostly teaching hospitals) will have waiting lists to get treatment.  Next step is the government taking over the failed providers with tax-payers money, running them as inefficiently as Washington is now, and the take-over that was dismissed last night is complete.  It's not from ill-will (at least I don't think it is) but lack of adequate thought into the long-term impact.

[BobbyR]

There is a group of people who may have grown up hard, or are the children who have grown up hard. They are angry at everyone. They despise those who have more, and conversely they despise everyone who has less, which I find odd. It is a syndrome I always had a hard time understanding, but I see it all the time. I have mine and that is all that matters. Some call it a working class mentality, but that is not true. I instruct people who do hard, dirty and dangerous work. Most don't feel that way. It is not a working class mentality, it is a peasant mentality. My Grandmother called them "Gavones" in Italian.

[Spanner 1]

+1 with Masonryman....... I'm buying you an e-beer, cheers !
In all the countries of Europe ( yep, democracies ) it was decieded a long time ago that the PEOPLE were the country's best asset, not corporations, and the good health of the populace a priority and a basic right, not an opportunity for profit-off-illness which civilised nations deem to be immoral and have acted accordingly to ensure equal access to healthcare. Yes, private insurance still exists if you want it, many have it and it supports private clinics etc, but the rest of the world in 2009 is STUNNED to know that 60 million Americans ( 'richest' country in the world ) have no health cover, something they addressed decades ago........

[Cvillechopper]

+1 with Masonryman....... I'm buying you an e-beer, cheers !
In all the countries of Europe ( yep, democracies ) it was decieded a long time ago that the PEOPLE were the country's best asset, not corporations, and the good health of the populace a priority and a basic right, not an opertunity for profit-off-illness which civilised nations deem to be immoral and have acted accordingly to ensure equal access to healthcare. Yes, private insurance still exists if you want it, many have it and it supports private clinics etc, but the rest of the world in 2009 is STUNNED to know that 60 million Americans ( 'richest' country in the world ) have no health cover, something they addressed decades ago........

Please read the above post by ed.  60 million is a gross exaggeration according to census reports.  20 million is a small fraction of the total population.  Also, insurance is a choice.  It's a way to pass on risk to someone in exchange for a steady premium.  In no way should that be a right.  If I want someone else to pay if my house floods I don't think I have the right to that.  I know that I must pay them for that assumption of risk.  If I deem it a high enough probability I must plan for the small recurring expense in order to avoid the potential for a much higher one-time expense later.

[Spanner 1]

In other civilised countries access to healthcare is an equal right for everyone.
Why do Americans kick and scream against this concept ? I guess the only explaination is that 'some' are obviously more deserving than others and a ' look at me, I've more money/stuff than you ' attitude needs to exist around healthcare too. Remember, all Govn. folks and all Military folks have had ' socialised' medical care for ages....but then they are obviously more deserving than the rest of us !

[Inigo Montoya]

Cville, what you say makes little sense. Paying someone to assume your risk? PLease, LIVING is a risk. You could be walking to your bathroom and keel over. You could be sitting in your chair and frozen blue chunk comes through your roof and hits you. It is not like you can control every situation. what if your child develops leukemia? Things just happen but then "paying someone to assume your risk" sounds like how an insurance company would term it.

Boggles the mind when people start assuming businesses should run at little to no profit simply because the industry they are in is an emotionally charged one.

This one is funny too. BCBS in ND is being investigated and will most likely end up with some serious restructuring. 90 cents of every dollar paid to them stays in the company. Yeah maybe read that one again. 90 cents! That is nothing but GROSSLY inefficient. Of course when the upper management is getting trips to places like the grand caymans and such, what do you you expect. Insurance companies need a kick in the butt, I am tired of getting donkey punched by them.

[Cvillechopper]

Cville, what you say makes little sense. Paying someone to assume your risk? PLease, LIVING is a risk. You could back walking to your bathroom and keel over. You could be sitting in your chair and frozen blue chunk comes through your roof and hits you. It is not like you can control every situation. what if your child develops leukemia? Things just happen but then "paying someone to assume your risk" sounds like how an insurance company would term it.

Boggles the mind when people start assuming businesses should run at little to no profit simply because the industry they are in is an emotionally charged one.

This one is funny too. BCBS in ND is being investigated and will most likely end up with some serious restructuring. 90 cents of every dollar paid to them stays in the company. Yeah maybe read that one again. 90 cents! That is nothing but GROSSLY inefficient. Of course when the upper management is getting trips to places like the grand caymans and such, what do you you expect. Insurance companies need a kick in the butt, I am tired of getting donkey punched by them.

Not sure why you don't understand what insurance is.  There is a risk that I will be in a wreck.  In order to avoid having to cover the costs myself i pay a company to assume that risk (they pay IF I am in a wreck).  Very basic stuff here.

[ev0lve]

Are we actually arguing over this? Is there anything said in this clip anyone in this conversation disagrees with? And BTW, a huge thanks to Joe Wilson for bright lining the opposition.

[edbikerii]

Actually, no.  In the UK for example, the rich can afford to hire the best doctors money can buy with no regard for national health care.  The working class gets to pay double the tax rates of the United States, and they get to buy supplemental private insurance because they don't want to be left out in the cold waiting for NHS to ration them chemotherapy should they be so unlucky as to get cancer.  The poor, well THEY get crappy care under NHS.

In other civilised countries access to healthcare is an equal right for everyone.
Why do Americans kick and scream against this concept ? I guess the only explaination is that 'some' are obviously more deserving than others and a ' look at me, I've more money/stuff than you ' attitude needs to exist around healthcare too. Remember, all Govn. folks and all Military folks have had ' socialised' medical care for ages....but then they are obviously more deserving than the rest of us !

[ev0lve]

The poor, well THEY get crappy care under NHS.

As opposed to no care without it?

[Spanner 1]

Hello Gentlemen,

This is Spanner's Missus, the one with the plaid bike.  I was reading some of the posts and felt  the need to add my two cents.  Like my hubby I am also Euro-trash.  I was raised in Germany and only returned to the States in the mid-nineties.  Back home in Germany when I was selling cars and motorcycles for BMW, I was required to have health insurance but my insurance company did not make a profit from selling health insurance.  My insurance company made a profit from selling me my auto, life and homeowners insurance which were separate divisions within the same company.  If I had been poor, the government provides services so I wouldn't have to worry.

Ed, you have great confidence in your health insurance contract.  Pity your insurance company doesn't feel the same way.  Their profit motive requires them to deny you benefits.  Even though you're here defending them, they will still deny you coverage and drop your policy.  I did laugh at a few of your assumptions... "people today don't want to work hard to get the things that they want"..."They want to get those things for "free"..."They expect the government to bail them out of the messes that they create."  Sounds like Wall Street to me.  "They want to live a life of excess, and they don't care about how it gets paid for"  That sounds like a headline from November 08.  Plus, I wonder what color and class you think all those selfish and lazy people are.  

Cville, where do I start?  

"I would like to ask why so many seem to think that insurance is a basic right?"  No one thinks that.

 "Boggles the mind when people start assuming businesses should run at little to no profit simply because the industry they are in is an emotionally charged one."  It does boggle the mind.  I'm not sure how to overcome this objection since you reduce our most important moral choices to an 'emotionally charged' issue.  Why do you think doctor's have taken the Hippocratic Oath since medicine started?  Do you think it's because their profession is 'emotionally charged' or because it shapes the basis of our morality?  Let me be clear for you...access to health care is a moral issue.  It is immoral to profit from the risk of illness and suffering.  That is why NO ONE else does it...not even the Swiss, God love them.  The rest of your argument doesn't make sense either.  Are you saying that bio-tech isn't profitable anymore?  And since when are insurance companies funding hospitals?

The profit motive applied to health care is immoral.   Plain and simple.  Let's make our money elsewhere, like selling Snuggies and Chia Pets or computer chips and iPhones.  Let's invest our money with them and reap the profits but we ought not to profit from insurance companies denying coverage to sick people.  There are better ways to make a buck.

[Spanner 1]

Ed, it is both wrong and insulting to suggest that the most expensive doctors give the best care. There are many, many doctors who are driven by their vocation and excell...nothing to do with their remuneration.

[edbikerii]

No, as opposed to Medicaid here in the U.S.  Why those that make too much money to qualify for Medicaid go around with no insurance is beyond me.  If you'd go back and look in this thread, health insurance is not particularly expensive in the U.S., especially if you get a plan with a high deductible.  I've posted quotes in this very thread.

The poor, well THEY get crappy care under NHS.

As opposed to no care without it?

[edbikerii]

Reductio ad absurdum.

Rationing is a well-known problem with NHS.  Those with private insurance contracts are guaranteed treatments that those on NHS are regularly denied.  I've posted several articles and links here proving it.

Ed, it is both wrong and insulting to suggest that the most expensive doctors give the best care. There are many, many doctors who are driven by their vocation and excell...nothing to do with their remuneration.

[mallard]

The profit motive applied to health care is immoral.

 I hope someone from the land of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' will address this fundamental statement. The rest of this thread is just chatter.