Author Topic: Health Care in England Question  (Read 40141 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Duke McDukiedook

  • Space Force 6 Star General
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 12,690
  • Wish? Did somebody say wish?
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #75 on: July 30, 2009, 11:34:19 AM »
Like I said before, take half the money we spend on bombing brown people and you can more than cover the costs to provide for the best health care system in the world.

It can be done right if everyone takes an active role in the system, from top to bottom.

And your precious already too high taxes wouldn't be raised a red cent, Ed.



« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 11:37:29 AM by Dukiedook »
"Well, Mr. Carpetbagger. We got somethin' in this territory called the Missouri boat ride."   Josey Wales

"It's Baltimore, gentlemen. The gods will not save you." Ervin Burrell

CB750 K3 crat | (2) 1986 VFR750F

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #76 on: July 30, 2009, 11:41:00 AM »
Alright, tortelvis, you can climb down off your make-believe moral high ground now.  You haven't been paying attention.  Has anyone here, or anywhere, said that money was all that matters?

Have you actually seen a child left to "die from a treatable condition", here in the US?  I have never seen, nor heard of such a preposterous thing happening here in the US, other than by neglectful parents who never took their child to a doctor or hospital in the first place.  Talk about fear-mongering!

We all know ~40 million people un-insured sucks.  The primary concern is that UK healthcare sucks too.  We all know about the waiting for appointments and the rationing of chemotherapy drugs for cancer patients on NHS.  All of this is well documented for anyone with access to google to see.  Perhaps you fail to understand that delaying or limiting cancer treatments can be just as fatal as a gunshot wound.

We shouldn't just jump on a bandwagon and rush to adopt a system in haste that will screw things up for the other ~270 million people.  Hell, if you feel so strongly about it, why don't you accept those 40 million people into the UK?  Then they'll have insurance.  Since at least 12 million of them are illegal immigrants anyway, it won't make that much difference if they're here or in the UK, right?

I have to weigh in here as an American who spent over 25 years in England I know both sides of the coin. US health care sucks. Period. When a child can be left to die from a treatable condition because the parents cannot afford the extortionate costs there is something seriously wrong with the "system". The English have an expression:
I'm all right, Jack, pull up the ladder." I see this attitude here, one of "I have mine and could care less about yours". Now I am hearing that the majority of us don't want a government healthcare system, mainly because people are scared of losing what they have. I guess caring about my fellow Americans mahes me a commie bastard. How can anyone justify over 40 million Americans with no healthcare being acceptable? We are talking about people's lives! Has it really come to this, that money is the ONLY thing that matters? For 25 years I worked and paid into the NHS every week. Occasionally I had cause to visit the doctor and not once did I have to check my bank balance to see if I could afford it. Prescriptions were capped at an affordable level and if God forbid, I was ever temporarily jobless, I could still recieve medical attention. I had a MAJOR accident outside Salisbury in 1998 and was signed off work for over two years. I cannot begin to imagine the cost of the excellent treatment that I received at Oddstock hospital over here. As to the rumour mongering I expect nothing less from the best politicians that special interest money can buy. It amazed me when I returned to find that those who can afford it are all on some type of regular medication. It seems that the majority of us think that is unacceptable to feel the slightest discomfort if there is a pill that might make it better. A common complaint I hear all the time is "They haven't got my meds right!" Well maybe if you tried a little diet and exercise you wouldn't need to fill your body with powerful chemicals to feel better. And this from a country obsessed with the War on Drugs. Please! The biggest drug dealers in the world are all listed on the stock exchange and we are the addicts. Of course I expect to be flamed and told to "go back". F**k you! This is my country and I hate what the greedy bastards have done to it. I hope to God you never have to face the very real chance that one of your loved ones will left to die because of a lack of money.
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 #77 on: July 30, 2009, 02:50:35 PM »
 
I shouldn't but. HT, Bobby, Kit etc it's the same thing as always with "fast eddy" he's OK so to hell with everyone else, he's covered so 41 million who aren't and all the others that are under insured should drop off the world and not clutch at him. I should start to reread Dickens again except it would be depressing because I think it would point out that we haven't progressed much.
Bill the demon.
Without commenting on anything else, I'd like to comment on the 41 million. We like to think that the US has an element of "freedom of choice" more than most anyway, and its something we (I) treasure. Many of the 41M have made a choice not to buy healthcare they could otherwise afford. They would prefer to have tickets to the game or satellite TV, or extremely loud and expensive auto stereos with wheels I've heard cost many thousands of dollars or such.

Healthcare to them is an entitlement. Their children get 100% free care from medicaid and they go uncovered by
choice.  There is plenty of data on this, and I live in an area that is chuck full of evidence.

IT is not right to screw up my healthcare coverage with which I am perfectly happy, in order to "extend coverage" to people who don't want it unless its given to them.
You have raised some valid concerns. We just hired a new fellow who emigrated from Scotland. His wife is American. He needed to get some health Insurance while he found work. The premiums for a very basic Blue Cross plan to cover his wife and child with high deductibles was $12,000 a year. For a premium plan it would have been almost $40,000. These are real numbers less that 6 months old.

With the average American salary in the US hovering at $45 - 50K per year before taxes, a $12,000 after tax bite is pretty steep. That is why the working people without coverage from their employer are looking for a solution, the poor will always get some emergency care. It is the working stiff who is really taking a beating. I am sure that if you offered them let's say $7,000 paid into a Healthcare pool via for full coverage, it would look attractive.
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 ev0lve

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,930
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #78 on: July 30, 2009, 03:00:32 PM »
In case anyone's interested - Bill Frist and Howard Dean on Charlie Rose.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/content/10524

Offline Bob Wessner

  • "Carbs Suck!"
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,079
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #79 on: July 30, 2009, 03:01:58 PM »
Bobby,

Sounds like the example you gave is for non-group, individual coverage. Always very expensive and probably always will be.
We'll all be someone else's PO some day.

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #80 on: July 30, 2009, 03:33:07 PM »
Yes Bob.

I just got a quote for a hypothetical family of three (husband 38, wife 38, kid 7) from Oxford for $674.03/month.  And that is pre-tax, not after-tax.  For a family of three with a very high likelihood of incurring medical costs far in excess of the premiums ($8088.36 per year, tax deductible, so worst-case it is just less than $6K per year), I'd say that's a good bargain.  Besides, that is individual policies, whereas large employers have leverage to negotiate better group rates.

If you are in love with Blue Cross, you can see that their plans start at $713.01/month, tax-deductible.

The MOST expensive plan from Blue Cross was about $24,000 per year.  There was one other plan available that cost $48K per year, but who would be that stupid?  Maybe some wacked-out celebrity nutjob?

One of Obama's proposals to PARTIALLY pay for "universal" healthcare is to make the premiums NON-DEDUCTIBLE for payers, and make the employer-paid portions TAXABLE to the EMPLOYEE.  In other words, you would have to claim the cost that your employer pays for your health insurance as INCOME, and pay income tax on it.

Bobby,

Sounds like the example you gave is for non-group, individual coverage. Always very expensive and probably always will be.
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 #81 on: July 30, 2009, 05:38:49 PM »
Bobby,

Sounds like the example you gave is for non-group, individual coverage. Always very expensive and probably always will be.
Yes Bob, it is. That would be the predicament someone who had lost their job, or had a job with no benefits and had to pay their own way. That is why there needs to be either a Gov't or Quasi Gov't' Supergroup to cover these folks that find themselves up against it. I am not sure the US has evolved to a point we could build a complete NHS all at once.
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 edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #82 on: July 30, 2009, 05:55:26 PM »
While I was at it getting health insurance quotes for BobbyR's friend, I figured I'd help you out, too, HavocTurbo.

I assumed that you are about 25 years old, single, no kids.  If I'm wrong, you can just go to www.ehealthinsurance.com and get a quote for yourself.

Looks like you can get Blue Cross for $82.05/mo. with a higher deductible of $1750 and $30 copays for doctor office visits.  Chances are that at your age you won't ever need to pay the $1750 deductible, so that makes sense for you to pay less.

I'm sure you set aside more than $82.05 per month for rolling-paper, so you don't have a damned excuse in hell for not having health insurance in case you wreck your bike and break your neck.  Why don't you do us all a favor, and get some insurance so we don't have to bail your ass out when you wipe out.
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 gregimotis

  • poet laureate; SOHC4.
  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #83 on: July 30, 2009, 08:39:09 PM »
Well, isn't this interesting (consumer reviews of ehealth):


Bad organization, useless live representatives, no desire to help, useless advertising practices.

Very poor customer service, very poor results, long delays in processing

Worthless as a real broker. Lousy customer service.

 Long application process, web application did not work, rates went up 26% in 3 months.

We had been charged the amount for 60 days even though our app specifically stated we only wanted 30 days coverage

 Impersonal, and dangerously anonymous

Waste of money - false advertising - not very friendly


So, to sum up:  Cheap insurance sucks, no one except Ed and the Senate can afford good insurance, and all us poor people are lazy s**** who should take what we deserve.
Also, we are probably welfare cheats too.


PS:  My employer provided health plan (800.00 dollars/mo + whatever my employer kicks in) Denies my wife's medication every month.  Until my doctor calls them and points out that it's clearly covered in the plan on page 23 'medications covered'.  So add me to the percent of insured Americans who are not the least happy with this system.





"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #84 on: July 30, 2009, 08:56:57 PM »
Greg, I wasn't endorsing ehealthinsurance.com, I just found it by looking for "health insurance rates" on Google for like 5 seconds.  You could try any of the other 56,500,000 results (yes, really) to see if you can do better or get better service, whatever.

Besides, the broker is just the broker.  They are not the health insurance company.  Why not try calling Blue Cross directly.  You might get even BETTER rates, because they could cut out the middle-man.  Who knows?  Better yet, if you belong to just about ANY organization (trade groups, AAA, IEEE, SAE, AARP, USAA, professional organizations, alumni associations, etc.), there is probably a negotiated group rate available to you if you just ask around.

Well, isn't this interesting (consumer reviews of ehealth):


Bad organization, useless live representatives, no desire to help, useless advertising practices.

Very poor customer service, very poor results, long delays in processing

Worthless as a real broker. Lousy customer service.

 Long application process, web application did not work, rates went up 26% in 3 months.

We had been charged the amount for 60 days even though our app specifically stated we only wanted 30 days coverage

 Impersonal, and dangerously anonymous

Waste of money - false advertising - not very friendly


So, to sum up:  Cheap insurance sucks, no one except Ed and the Senate can afford good insurance, and all us poor people are lazy s**** who should take what we deserve.
Also, we are probably welfare cheats too.


PS:  My employer provided health plan (800.00 dollars/mo + whatever my employer kicks in) Denies my wife's medication every month.  Until my doctor calls them and points out that it's clearly covered in the plan on page 23 'medications covered'.  So add me to the percent of insured Americans who are not the least happy with this system.






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 gregimotis

  • poet laureate; SOHC4.
  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #85 on: July 30, 2009, 09:01:20 PM »
The fact is, NOBODY wants ~40Million people walking around without health insurance.  NOBODY.  Not liberals, not conservatives, NOBODY...

My argument is not that we don't need to improve the system, but rather that we do need to improve it without making it worse for the ~270 Million Americans that are insured today.


Above is a quote from Ed on page 7 (I think, will check) EDIT: page six



ED, we have yet to hear how you, or conservatives generally, would actually improve the system.  In fact as I recall, conservatives ran the government for six of the last eight years... Health insurance didn't seem to come up.

Warrantless searches came up,
limitations on freedom of speech came up,
Wiretapping came up,
The AG argued BEFORE CONGRESS that Americans had no right to Habeas Corpus - That came up too



But not how to improve health insurance.  Other things which didn't come up:


How to balance the budget.
How to increase our personal freedoms
Where is Osama Bin Laden (hint: not Iraq)


Tha's pretty much the Republican plank right there - freedoms, budget, War on terror.  And all I got was this crummy second amendment (you guys went on endlessy about that) - worth nothin if the other rights aren't included.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 09:08:13 PM by gregimotis »
"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #86 on: July 30, 2009, 09:11:25 PM »
Yes, that's my quote.

Hey, I'm not standing by GWB, either.  No true Conservative would have allowed the government and the budget to grow the way it did under GWB.  Yeah, I think McCain would have been a better president than BHO, but McCain pissed me off when he voted for that stupid bailout bill back in November 2008.  That "bailout" was completely irresponsible.

I believe that the reason why healthcare wasn't an issue is because we didn't have 10% unemployment during that entire time.  Now we have 10% unemployment, and people are finding it hard to pay the premiums and even get employer-based insurance.

The link that Iggy posted to the Dr. Dean vs. Dr. Frist debate was really quite enlightening, and answers many of your questions.  Just beware of the emotionally charged rhetoric that Dean uses.

Furthermore, I've already repeatedly suggested that we fix the existing public systems, Medicaid, Medicare and VA Hospitals before we even consider creating yet another huge government bureaucracy.  My fixes would involve having the administrators be accountable for keeping costs down.  Things like paying $1200 for renting a wheelchair that could have been bought for $400 is simply idiotic.  That kind of idiocy is common in government agencies, because government is accountable to nobody, and there is no incentive to cut costs.  Raises and other perks should be based on performance, and poor performance should be discouraged with termination, just like in any well-run organization.

The fact is, NOBODY wants ~40Million people walking around without health insurance.  NOBODY.  Not liberals, not conservatives, NOBODY...

My argument is not that we don't need to improve the system, but rather that we do need to improve it without making it worse for the ~270 Million Americans that are insured today.


Above is a quote from Ed on page 7 (I think, will check)



ED, we have yet to hear how you, or conservatives generally, would actually improve the system.  In fact, as I recall, conservatives ran the government for six of the last eight years... Health insurance didn't seem to come up.

Warrantless searches came up,
limitations on freedom of speech came up,
Wiretapping came up,
The AG argued BEFORE CONGRESS that Americans had no right to Habeas Corpus.  That came up too



But not how to improve health insurance.  Other things which didn't come up:


How to balance the budget.
How to increase our personal freedoms
Where is Osama Bin Laden (hint: not Iraq)


Tha's pretty much the Republican plank right there - freedoms, budget, War on terror.  And all I got was this crummy second amendment - worth nothin if the other rights aren't included.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2009, 09:26:40 PM 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

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 #87 on: July 30, 2009, 11:43:28 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:

Personally, I find it outright frightening.  :o

My wife has had Type I diabetes since before we were married (over 30 years, now). She went 4 rounds with breast cancer. I went a round with serious cancer, too. My annual outlay for health insurance plus health care costs are an average of $18k/year, since 1986. We don't have trouble with health care insurance companies: I simply read the coverage documents and TELL them what they are going to cover, with chapter and verse from their own 'bibles'. That stops all the arguemnts, every time. Yes, sometimes it takes a little effort on my part (sometimes more than a little), but this is serious health care at work, and I drive it. The day-to-day prescription coverages and items for my wife's chronic disease maintenance is always spelled out in their "plan", but my experience (regardless of carrier) is that the 3rd-party companies the insurers hire to administer the payments seldom know how to do their job. We have had HMOs, PPO, independents, and (Colorado) state-based "high-risk uninsurable" insurance plans over the years. All suffer this same problem with their staffing and management. My credit record has been shredded by these inept people for things like "this bill was never paid" when in fact, I've never even seen that bill.

I can say with 100% certainty that a Federally-administered Health Plan will not be this simple to navigate, nor to administer on a personal basis. Any one of you who has had to deal with ANYTHING that is run by the Feds can tell your own story of how well those systems work: this Plan would not be different.

A workable solution:
All that is needed, IMO: uniform rules, applied across the States, telling insurers where their profit limits are. This would be tantamount to a Utility Company, before the Feds broke those up into the little pieces they are today: a State or Federal board used to meet with the Utility to see where the profits and losses were, and allow rate hikes (or require rate reductions) accordingly. You older members might remember those days, when Utilities actually worked better than they do today: those of you who are under 35 years of age won't remember those days, I'm afraid...this produced a low level of inflation, moderate, predictable profits, excellent system growth and maintenance, and a hell of a lot of innovation on the part of those Utilities, where technologies that reduced their operating costs would improve their profits.

In fact, you would not be able to rant here, now, but for all that happened with the Bell System in those 20 years: nothing new has happened in those Systems since they were "broken up", but you are using their pathways now. This Internet was developed by former Bell Systems people, working under contract at DARPA in the 1980s: when I first used it, on a 9600 baud modem, it was so fast (over telephone lines) that we could burn EEPROMs real-time from servers halfway across the U.S. on a 4MHz desktop computer. Today, you cannot even download the EEPROM file on high-speed connection in the same time, let alone trying to burn one over the wire. It has regressed steadily because the technology has been stagnant for lack of leadership and incentive since 1993. All that has gotten 'faster' is the computers that move the data from point to point: the fiber optics that move the data were invented in the Bell Labs in 1980 (I designed and built, and held the patent until 1996, on the first fiber optic data link in the American Oilfield, circa 1986, so I do know one or two things about the science). Nothing new has been done since then, just improvements to that old technology, because Bell Labs was shattered and shuttered by the "breakup".

Sometimes, uniform management is the key, not uniform forced service.  :)

There, my rant is all done. I feel better...
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 BeSeeingYou

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,913
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #88 on: July 30, 2009, 11:59:44 PM »
If you listen to the crap spewing out of conservative

This is EXACTLY where I stopped reading your post, because I realized that you had nothing worthwhile to say without trying to bash people with partisan politics.


But....you read it enough to respond to it. ;D ;D ;D  Who was I bashing? Nobody here on the forum.  Just El Rushbo and other republican politicians who have no interest in passing any kind of health care reform.  It is more important to score political points than help the American people.  As distasteful as it is I listen to right wing nut radio and keep well informed about what Michael Steele, Mitch McConnell, and other republican "leaders"  ::) are saying in their little behind closed door meetings.  The stuff leaks out.  It's all about trying to damage Obama politically because if he is successful it will be bad for the republicans.  They don't give a sh!t about the middle class and are willing shaft the country to try and save their sorry political asses.  What is the republican plan?  What do they offer?  Nothing but the status quo.   Partisan politics in the health care debate.  Oh no!  How could that be?  It is just part of a greater debate on the direction of the country. 

You had some other post where you were saying what's the big deal about 47 million uninsured because of the 270 other million with great health care.  See, I sometimes read your posts, if I can listen to El Rushbo I can slog through your stuff. ;D   Well my friend Russ is one of those 270 million with "great health care".  Now he is on the hook for $80,000 because his health insurance company is refusing to pay for an operation he had on his neck because they contend the injury was from a car accident he had five years ago(it is not from this accident).  And the car insurance won't cover it because it is not related to the accident.  So now he has to get a lawyer on the case.  Yep, that's some great health care.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 12:21:13 AM by srust58 »

Offline Glenn Stauffer

  • SOHC/4 #3 - Member since 1994
  • Administrator
  • Expert
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,295
    • The SOHC/4 Owners Group
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #89 on: July 31, 2009, 04:02:15 AM »
Notice: Posts were removed from this thread that were deemed to be in violation of forum rules.  If you find that your posts were removed and don't like that fact, read the rules that can be found at the top of this board.

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #90 on: July 31, 2009, 04:36:55 AM »
But....you read it enough to respond to it. ;D ;D ;D  Who was I bashing? Nobody here on the forum.  Just El Rushbo and other republican politicians who have no interest in passing any kind of health care reform. 

...

Hey, you're learning.  Slowly.  I managed to get a couple sentences further this time before the partisan attacks started and I tuned out.  Maybe one day you'll be able to refrain and then we can have a meaningful discussion.
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 HavocTurbo

  • Angry little bastard of an
  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,739
  • Can you tell?
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #91 on: July 31, 2009, 08:18:10 AM »
Haha glenn you're awesome!!
'48 HD Panhead - Exxon Valdez
'78 CB550K - Fokker CB.3
'78 Honda CB750K - Mavrik
'80 Yamaha XS850G - Kanibalistik
09 XL883L - No Name

Offline BobbyR

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 12,367
  • Proud Owner of the Babe Thread & Dirty Old Man
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #92 on: July 31, 2009, 02:29:07 PM »
A workable solution:
All that is needed, IMO: uniform rules, applied across the States, telling insurers where their profit limits are. This would be tantamount to a Utility Company, before the Feds broke those up into the little pieces they are today: a State or Federal board used to meet with the Utility to see where the profits and losses were, and allow rate hikes (or require rate reductions) accordingly. You older members might remember those days, when Utilities actually worked better than they do today: those of you who are under 35 years of age won't remember those days, I'm afraid...this produced a low level of inflation, moderate, predictable profits, excellent system growth and maintenance, and a hell of a lot of innovation on the part of those Utilities, where technologies that reduced their operating costs would improve their profits.

In fact, you would not be able to rant here, now, but for all that happened with the Bell System in those 20 years: nothing new has happened in those Systems since they were "broken up", but you are using their pathways now. This Internet was developed by former Bell Systems people, working under contract at DARPA in the 1980s: when I first used it, on a 9600 baud modem, it was so fast (over telephone lines) that we could burn EEPROMs real-time from servers halfway across the U.S. on a 4MHz desktop computer. Today, you cannot even download the EEPROM file on high-speed connection in the same time, let alone trying to burn one over the wire. It has regressed steadily because the technology has been stagnant for lack of leadership and incentive since 1993. All that has gotten 'faster' is the computers that move the data from point to point: the fiber optics that move the data were invented in the Bell Labs in 1980 (I designed and built, and held the patent until 1996, on the first fiber optic data link in the American Oilfield, circa 1986, so I do know one or two things about the science). Nothing new has been done since then, just improvements to that old technology, because Bell Labs was shattered and shuttered by the "breakup".

Sometimes, uniform management is the key, not uniform forced service.  :)

There, my rant is all done. I feel better...
I think you may have hot the nail on the head about treating Health care as a utility rather than a commodity. I do remember when the Phone, Electric, and Banks and Airlines were regulated. The old timers were not stupid and knew that certain businesses needed regulation, to assure and orderly society and stable infrastructure. All of these industries made a profit and were obligated to provide a specified level of service and with the exception of Banks their profit was dialed in. AT&T and the other utility stocks were stable and recommended for long term retirement planning.
While I admired Regan and do believe in a free market he went too far. Rather than deregulation bringing prosperity, it brought us the S&L crisis, Enron, Worldcom, Junk  Bonds, and the current credit crunch and housing bust.

This idea of the regulation of Health Insurance Companies may be what will work here in the US. It sort of fits our model and past practices rather than embarking on something we do not understand.
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 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 #93 on: July 31, 2009, 09:27:02 PM »
This idea of the regulation of Health Insurance Companies may be what will work here in the US. It sort of fits our model and past practices rather than embarking on something we do not understand.

Maybe, but who do we tell?  ???
Washington isn't listening, they seem to be Aristocracy, now.  >:(
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 edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #94 on: July 31, 2009, 09:56:57 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:

Personally, I find it outright frightening.  :o


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?

Quote
I can say with 100% certainty that a Federally-administered Health Plan will not be this simple to navigate, nor to administer on a personal basis. Any one of you who has had to deal with ANYTHING that is run by the Feds can tell your own story of how well those systems work: this Plan would not be different.
  I couldn't agree more.

Quote
A workable solution:
All that is needed, IMO: uniform rules, applied across the States, telling insurers where their profit limits are. This would be tantamount to a Utility Company, before the Feds broke those up into the little pieces they are today: a State or Federal board used to meet with the Utility to see where the profits and losses were, and allow rate hikes (or require rate reductions) accordingly. You older members might remember those days, when Utilities actually worked better than they do today: those of you who are under 35 years of age won't remember those days, I'm afraid...this produced a low level of inflation, moderate, predictable profits, excellent system growth and maintenance, and a hell of a lot of innovation on the part of those Utilities, where technologies that reduced their operating costs would improve their profits.
Wow, that is an interesting perspective on regulation.  I'd never thought about the angle of working harder to innovate in order to maximize profits within regulated cost limits.  I'm over 35, but I must admit I don't really remember how well that system worked.  There must have been some reason whey they broke that up.  Can you give us a little background on that?
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 #95 on: July 31, 2009, 10:08:21 PM »

Quote
A workable solution:
All that is needed, IMO: uniform rules, applied across the States, telling insurers where their profit limits are. This would be tantamount to a Utility Company, before the Feds broke those up into the little pieces they are today: a State or Federal board used to meet with the Utility to see where the profits and losses were, and allow rate hikes (or require rate reductions) accordingly. You older members might remember those days, when Utilities actually worked better than they do today: those of you who are under 35 years of age won't remember those days, I'm afraid...this produced a low level of inflation, moderate, predictable profits, excellent system growth and maintenance, and a hell of a lot of innovation on the part of those Utilities, where technologies that reduced their operating costs would improve their profits.
Wow, that is an interesting perspective on regulation.  I'd never thought about the angle of working harder to innovate in order to maximize profits within regulated cost limits.  I'm over 35, but I must admit I don't really remember how well that system worked.  There must have been some reason whey they broke that up.  Can you give us a little background on that?

Basically this is the way they do it in the Netherlands. I'd be in favor of regulating insurance like this myself whether nationally or by state.

Good old wikipedia on the Netherlands (bolding is mine):
The Netherlands has a dual-level system. All primary and curative care (i.e. the family doctor service and hospitals and clinics) is financed from private compulsory insurance. Long term care for the elderly, the dying, the long term mentally ill etc. is covered by social insurance funded from taxation. According to the WHO, the health care system in the Netherlands was 62% government funded and 38% privately funded as of 2004.[6]

Insurance companies must offer a core universal insurance package for the universal primary, curative care which includes the cost of all prescription medicines. They must do this at a fixed price for all. The same premium is paid whether young or old, healthy or sick. It is illegal in The Netherlands for insurers to refuse an application for health insurance, to impose special conditions (e.g. exclusions, deductables, co-pays etc or refuse to fund treatments which a doctor has determined to be medically necessary). The system is 50% financed from payroll taxes paid by employers to a fund controlled by the Health regulator. The government contributes an additional 5% to the regulator's fund. The remaining 45% is collected as premiums paid by the insured directly to the insurance company. Some employers negotiate bulk deals with health insurers and some even pay the employees' premiums as an employment benefit). All insurance companies receive additional funding from the regulator's fund. The regulator has sight of the claims made by policyholders and therefore can redistribute the funds its holds on the basis of relative claims made by policy holders. Thus insurers with high payouts will receive more from the regulator than those with low payouts. Thus insurance companies have no incentive to deter high cost individuals from taking insurance and are compensated if they have to pay out more than might be expected. Insurance companies compete with each other on price for the 45% direct premium part of the funding and try to negotiate deals with hospitals to keep costs low and quality high. The competition regulator is charged with checking for abuse of dominant market positions and the creation of cartels that act against the consumer interests. An insurance regulator ensures that all basic policies have identical coverage rules so that no person is medicially disadvantaged by his or her choice of insurer.

Hospitals in the Netherlands are also regulated and inspected but are mostly privately run and for profit, as are many of the insurance companies. Patients can choose where they want to be treated and have access to information on the internet about the performance and wait times at each hospital. Patients dissatisfied with their insurer and choice of hospital can cancel at any time but must make a new agreement with another insurer.

Insurance companies can offer additional services at extra cost over and above the universal system laid down by the regulator, e.g. for dental care. The standard monthly premium for health care paid by individual adults is about €100 per month. Persons on low incomes can get assistance from the government if they cannot afford these payments. Children under 18 are insured by the system at no additional cost to them or their families because the insurance company receives the cost of this from the regulator's fund.


Edit: As an afterthought - this isn't even on the table for us as far as I know in this session of Congress.

Oh look! There's a video!
http://www.minvws.nl/en/themes/health-insurance-system/the-new-health-care-system-in-the-Netherlands-video/

Press the T button in the control bar for the video to get english subtitles.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2009, 09:22:44 PM by Iggy »

Offline demon78

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
  • After work to the "Wets"
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #96 on: August 01, 2009, 03:19:59 AM »
Yeah, dumb question why did the major utilities get deregulated and broken up, you're right Bobby things used to work better than now.
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 #97 on: August 01, 2009, 09:08:26 AM »
Yeah, dumb question why did the major utilities get deregulated and broken up, you're right Bobby things used to work better than now.
Bill the demon.

Politics. Reagan wanted other degregulations, and he "negotiated" with lobbyists who also wanted the utilities broken up, so they could "trade" energy and make vast sums of money invisibly. These lobbyists later ended up in Clinton's regime: he did nothing to stop them from creating the Enron thing. In fact, he (and many other Washingtonians) drank huge contributions from the illegal tradings of Enron, Qwest, and other similar situations. After the deregulations occurred, the new safeguards that were supposed to watchdog the new practices did not get put in place until the Courts forced it about 2 years after Enron's collapse: this was because the courts took too long to implement the earlier rules, and the money was making too many participants look the other way.

In other words, Washington politics, as they now exist. The '90s really corrupted Washington, and now the Statists have cornered so much power that it is up to the People to control them: voting out the incumbents is usually the best way to do this. Once those people start living together inside the Beltway, they start creating aristocratic dreams for themselves and ignore the people that sent them there: sending them home (to the pitchforks?) is the only chance of stopping the activity.
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 edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Health Care in England Question
« Reply #98 on: August 01, 2009, 09:28:55 AM »
Oh wait, I remember now.  That was back when Ma Bell had their regulatory monopoly on all telecommunications nationwide.  Yes, up until the '70's Ma Bell innovated quite a bit with development of consumer telephone land-lines and features.

It is important to distinguish between the service that Bell provided residential consumers, which was much more highly regulated, and the vast array of services they provided to business customers, for which they could charge more money without the consumer protections of the regulations, so there was incentive to innovate.  And innovate they did!  Their commercial innovations were astounding, but residential service -- not so much.

Residential customers certainly have a much wider array of features available now, including voicemail, call waiting, three-way calling, forwarding, caller ID, etc. etc.   Pricing is much cheaper for the residential consumers today, too, especially as a percentage of our incomes.  Plus now we have cellular with TXT messaging, picture messaging, mobile internet, etc., etc.  Nearly all of these things only became available to the consumers after the regulated monopoly was broken up.  Things got even better when the cable companies started offering telephone services.

After Ma Bell was broken up, competition from other local carriers and cellular services forced the Baby Bells to innovate and be more competitive on pricing and innovative features for consumers.  I think the breakup did damage their commercial offerings somewhat, but it did allow smaller competitors to innovate and be successful.  Perhaps Ma Bell's massive resources would have produced even cooler stuff?  I guess we'll never konw.

I remember back when my family used to "give the signal", which meant to call and let the phone ring 1 or 2 times, and then hang up.  This would convey the message that you had gotten home safely from your visit without incurring the high cost of a long distance call that was prevalent back then.  Anybody remember the days before Caller ID?  You had to answer the phone to find out that you didn't want to talk to the caller.  Oh gosh, remember having to wait weeks to get your phone line installed and activated?

No doubt, Bell introduced some incredible technologies to the world, but I think more free-market competition made the marketplace even better.

Gas and electric utilities seem to be exactly the opposite, though.  I don't see any way that deregulation of power utilities helped the consumer at all.  Frankly, it seemed to have made almost no difference to me whatsoever, whereas in California the impact was much greater with those rolling black-outs and all.  Sure, there's also the massive damage done to our retirement plans by Enron's fraud, which was enabled by deregulation.

This distinction between the different needs of power utilities and telephone utilities might be similar to our health care needs.  I'm thinking that with healthcare we have some very different types of services needed within the greater umbrella of "healthcare".  We have a tremendous need for basic medicine for simple stuff like infections, colds, minor injuries, preventative and routine maintenance.  Then we have a whole different market that needs much more innovative stuff like advanced chemotherapy, radio therapy and surgical treatments for unusual diseases.  Innovation is KEY for finding cures here.  Maybe there is a need for regulatory oversight of the basic stuff so that more people can get coverage for routine treatments.  On the other hand, we really need to keep inspiring innovation in the more advanced treatment areas in order to find cures.  Maybe we need to consider this as two separate problems, instead of trying to find a single catch-all to fix everything.
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 #99 on: August 01, 2009, 10:17:46 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:

Personally, I find it outright frightening.  :o


Wow, that is an interesting perspective on regulation.  I'd never thought about the angle of working harder to innovate in order to maximize profits within regulated cost limits.  I'm over 35, but I must admit I don't really remember how well that system worked.  There must have been some reason whey they broke that up.  Can you give us a little background on that?

A very fair question.

The old timers realized that certain services were essential for the Country. We forget that the US is still a fairly young compared to Europe.

When the telegraph, railroads, electricity, radio, television, and airplanes came along they had to incorporate that into our system. These utilities were considered essential services for the Nation to grow. Rather than operating these businesses, the Government allowed them to be private but regulated them. The old timers also realized you needed stability to avoid chaos, you could not have 20 phone Companies running wires and planting poles all over the place, nor could you have people just set up a transmitter and broadcast.

The Airlines are a very good case. We never had a National Airline. Airlines that traveled across State lines had a set fare, it did not matter which you chose, a ticket cost the same. They were not allowed to give away any special premiums. They competed on service alone. If they lost your luggage, you were given an immediate $300.00. If the plane was delayed more that a given time, they were bound to give you a rebate. If it was a major delay they had to get you a Hotel room, you did not sleep on the floor in the Airport. In 1974 the price for a round trip NY to Cali cost $495 for a Coach seat. Each Airline made a profit, and that profit was a result of customer experience. The Airlines were the carrier for US Airmail, for which they were paid, and each Airline had it's share of the Mail service.  Today FEDEX carries the US mail.

There has always been a school of thought that regulation suppressed the free market from growth. That is true in some cases, the old timers were also were Empire builders not Socialists, but again they were savvy and knew you could also create chaos if you supposed that people would always do the right thing.  

Ronald Reagan who I greatly admired, was a free market thinker, he went too far. The Airline regulations were dismantled and there was a boom for a period of time, anyone who could lease a Plane had a Airline. The fares fell and the service also suffered, you now have to pay for your luggage, the Planes are dirty, Pilots badly trained, and if there is a delay, too bad for you. As these Airlines go under and are acquired by other Airlines, we wil be back where we were and none the better for it.

The Banks and financial institution were tightly regulated after the Depression of the 1930's. Franklin Roosevelt reached out the the the biggest financial manipulators and put them in charge. Joseph Kennedy, father of JFK closed all the loopholes he and his cronies used. While these guys pulled some dirty stunts, they also knew they had to keep everything from going to hell if the Nation would grow. So while the medicine tasted nasty, it was necessary.

Bush II and Congress were dumb enough to undo things put into place by people much smarter than they. Regulations put into place for a specific reasons were ended. You can see the result.

Alan Greenspan was the most admired man in America at one time, he was a rabid deregulator. Now he is scrambling to trying to salvage some of his reputation, he is now viewed in the Economic community as an idiot. What he did was help create this smoke a mirror boom, and the bust is now in his lap.

The Government has always subsidized businesses in some way or other. The farmers were paid to not to grow food to support prices. Government land was leased for a pittance to allow logging on public land for the timber companies.
The Oil Companies were given large Tax breaks since their product was considered a decreasing resource.
Now as Hondaman says perhaps we need solid regulation to assure a less chaotic Health care system in which Community Hospitals are not being closed at a furious rate, people are not denied or have essential treatments delayed. If someone changes jobs and insurers, the company will not be allowed to call their child's Asthma a preexisting condition and deny coverage. If your Company closes, you will have affordable coverage until you are back on your feet.

For me it is not so much about dismantling what is in place, it is keeping what we have from falling into chaos and the Nation go through a serious upheaval. The US is now at a crossroads in many areas, the decisions made today will dictate what our position in the World is in the future.    
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?