Topic: Health Care in England Question

[Frankenkit]

The thing is, it will always be cheaper to let someone die than to give them care.  That's why free enterprise, which is concerned wholly with profit margins (and yes, their profit margins are affected by customer service, and people choosing them, but if you have limited options, you're forced to pay them anyway)  will never truly take care of the people.

[edbikerii]

That is an excellent point.  Certainly businesses have the profit motive to try to reduce their payouts and their administrative overhead.  However, for a business in a competitive environment to continue making profits and keeping customers, they must provide the service they claim to provide, and they must try to keep their customers happy, or the customers will go to their competitors.  That is why it is necessary to have multiple businesses competing against each other to provide the required service.  The ONLY institution that is capable of getting their "customers" to pay without providing services is GOVERNMENT.

The thing is, it will always be cheaper to let someone die than to give them care.  That's why free enterprise, which is concerned wholly with profit margins (and yes, their profit margins are affected by customer service, and people choosing them, but if you have limited options, you're forced to pay them anyway)  will never truly take care of the people.

[edbikerii]

1.  We're not stupid.  We know that you paid into the system your whole life, and you, and your children, will still continue to pay through taxes on income, businesses, gasoline, etc.  Gasoline in my neighborhood costs about $2.30USD/Gal.  How much does gas cost in your neighborhood?  What is your effective income tax rate?  How many employers just gave up and went out of business in your town because the taxes were so high that they couldn't afford to hire employees and stay in business?

Before you answer, please remember that I've been to London many times.  My company has an office in London where we employ hundreds of your citizens, many of whom I've worked with directly, and drank beers with at the pub, for more than ten years.  I'm not completely ignorant of how things work over there.

2.  Good thing you didn't have cancer, because NHS is notorious for rationing chemotherapy treatments, especially for older folks, since they realize that they probably will die anyway, so why waste the money?  (not my thinking - see the articles I posted earlier which you clearly haven't read).

3.  Your story is illustrative of how the system is SUPPOSED to work.  That's great, but I certainly wouldn't stand behind one success story in the face of millions of failures.  One of the articles I posted above expose systemic failures in cancer treatment that have affected MILLIONS of cancer patients in the UK, and shortened their lives.  Rationing chemotherapy is not the kind, heartfealt "universal" health care that many Americans are being fooled into believing the system is about.

I had a triple coronary artery by-pass and a valve replacement 8 years ago and it didn't cost me a penny. I was 72 at the time and was in hospital for 8 days. Of course when I was working I paid our National Health Insurance as does everyone here. However if you were visiting the UK and needed Hospital treatment, you would get it without being forced to pay first.

[Retro Rocket]

Our last Prime minister John Howard was trying to  "Americanise" our system to fit in with his conservative one eyed views and was part of the reason he was voted out. Our system isn't perfect but its way better than yours. I have spent a lot of time in hospital {12 months straight at one time} before having my transplant and all my treatment and surgery was  FREE  and so is the after care and i spend $10 dollars a month on my immunosuppression   meds. I get the best surgeons in the country looking after me and i have absolutely nothing to complain about. Now i know it may be hard for you to believe Ed but Old Biker is correct and is not a "1 in a Million" some of the rubbish you are reading is blatantly wrong, you see when you have one of these procedures you meet lots and lots of people that have had the same procedures and the only one person i met that wasn't happy was when i was making a request to see the main specialist{the one that saved my life}, a fellow in earshot said to me " isn't it great to have private health cover, you can see who you want any time you want" i said to him "i have no health cover and see anyone i want any time i want" well he blew a fuse and went and canceled his health cover, i still see him at clinic often and he can't believe he gets the same treatment private cover or not.                       Are you saying your fuel costs are high? we pay the equivalent of 4.73 a gallon here in Aus?

Before you answer, please remember that I've been to London many times.  My company has an office in London where we employ hundreds of your citizens, many of whom I've worked with directly, and drank beers with at the pub, for more than ten years.  I'm not completely ignorant of how things work over there.

Don't try that as a defense in court, you would be laughed out, you must be part of the system to make factual comments not second hand pub fodder. My father is British and so is the entire side of his family and i have 1st hand accounts of what happens there and here in Aus, our system is a little better but man you guys are so afraid of change, you have to try something new NOW or nothing will ever change. Your health system sucks big time and is horribly slanted toward the rich and like it or not this happens because governments pander to the big companies in the push for bigger profits. Half the problem is the drug companies are ripping everyone off blind and try and justify it by saying they have to develop this and research that bla bla bla, when in fact they get most of their work done for them by Universities and research labs, they then buy the rights and manufacture the drugs, which by the way is relatively simple in most cases, and then charge like a wounded bull, all to make themselves rich. They don't care for one minute that anyone benefits from what they do, its all for profit. Its about time we started to do things for each other and not just for a profit. In a world without money i would be rich...

Rationing chemotherapy is not the kind, heartfealt "universal" health care that many Americans are being fooled into believing the system is about.

Neither is rationing or charging ridiculous amounts for immunosuppression meds and then having the highest rejection rate in the world and that happens in America now, the only ones who win out of that is the highly paid medical people, insurers and doctors.
What you have said above is scaremongering at its best. When they say that they want a health system like England well Englands is like ours but different, get what i'm saying. No government using anothers model does anything "exactly" so until it happens your comments are worth nothing, and i don't mean that to be smart in any way , but if it hasn't happened yet then there is no way you can make statements like that or are you privy to the legislation?....didn't think so.


Mick

[super pasty white guy]

Just off the top-  I'm rooting for the plan to go through.  It won't be perfect, but it'll be a damn sight better than what we have now.

Second-  Those who are saying that we're heading for the UK system (government take over & single payer), we're not.  They're proposing a plan in which all are required to purchase insurance, with a government plan in the mix to help cover those who are unemployed, etc.  This is much closer to the health care system in Germany and Luxemborg.

Third-  We're already rationing health care in this country.  We just force the consumer do the dirty work.  If your insurance companies refuses to pay for something (either outright or by dragging their feet), you have to decide if the care is worth it to you.  If you're uninsured, you have to decide what level of care you can afford (if any at all).  I view this as a much worse situation because instead of saying "this chemo will only extend your life 6 months but costs $20,000 per month",  we end up with situation that happened here with a child who died of meningitis because his mother couldn't afford to get dental work done on an abcess.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/163856/child_dies_for_lack_of_dental_care.html?cat=5

For a good overview of the other types of systems in other countries, check out the PBS Frontline documentary "sick around the world".  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

spwg

[BobbyR]

The bottom line after all this philosophical Bullsh1t is that we have a problem. If we don't start working on the problem it only gets worse. As Kit says if you start treating a problem before it gets worse it is less expensive in money and suffering.

That fat junkie Limbaugh and the rest of these shills are delaying the process of moving forward, and the Arbitrons say he has no real audience.
 
At the beginning of WWII the US had nothing in the way of a military, at the end we were the premiere superpower, which was probably not a blessing.

The US is not perfect, but we do some things well and we get sh!t done. We just take time getting off our asses until it is a crisis, the crisis is now.

The middle class people are pissed off and all the politicos are crapping their pants. The baby boomers are pissed off and we are huge in number and we vote. Nobody is following the party line these days. This bunch in Washington will be out right quick if they keep hitting us in the wallet. Americans love money above all else, now that we all have to live a bit closer to the bone, people are waking up.

   

[edbikerii]

I've got just a couple questions for you.  Please try to think about what I'm saying NOT as abrasive partisan politics, but rather as suggestions from ANYONE.  Let's make believe that I'm just somebody you met, and you don't know my political affiliations, and you aren't trying to defend the plan of some politician or party that you are trying to support.

1.  What is the difference between what you think is being proposed and the system that we have now?  The overwhelming majority of Americans (nearly 90%) have private health insurance now, and we have government-run Medicaid for people who cannot afford to pay for private health insurance.  Is this an unfair question in any way?  If so, please tell me how.

2.  If you feel that the current American system is so bad for uninsured people, why don't you simply ask your representatives in the government to fix Medicaid, instead of trying to alter the private healthcare insurance that works pretty well for more than 280 million Americans?  Again, is this somehow not a fair question?  Why can't anyone here answer this without making attacks?  It seems like a VERY SIMPLE, DIRECT, QUESTION, and a SIMPLE, DIRECT, SOLUTION that would cost a lot less than the TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars that are destined for "universal" healthcare.  Does anybody see any problems with fixing Medicaid?

3.  I could be wrong, but somehow I have a sneaking suspicion that PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) just might be the slightest bit biased.  I don't want to ruffle any feathers here, but I don't know if I would be so ready to swallow too much information from a "documentary" that they paid for, and that has an emotionally charged title like "sick around the world".  That sounds a little too "Michael Moorish" to me.  I'd prefer to look at the facts on my own.

If the claim is that there are 38 million (don't quote me on that, it is just some number I heard on the radio recently) Americans without health insurance, then perhaps it does make sense to require people to purchase insurance.  I, for one, have always spent the extra money to insure myself and my family, even when I was making close to the poverty level near the beginning of my career.  However, I knew of others who thought that they could skate by without forking over the couple hundred bucks a month for insurance.  Most of them survived, and they saved a lot of money.  I paid $238.56/mo. for COBRA [edit:  I checked this number in my old records] when I was single and earning only $19,000.00/year.  That was because I got a better job, more in line with my long-term aspirations, but that company didn't have paid health insurance.  My prior job paid only $15,600, but had excellent insurance.  I thought that it was worth the peace of mind knowing that if I crashed my motorcycle or got cancer or something, my issues would be covered.  I probably could have qualified for Medicare, back then, but I was simply too proud to ask for a hand-out from my fellow Americans.

Just off the top-  I'm rooting for the plan to go through.  It won't be perfect, but it'll be a damn sight better than what we have now.

Second-  Those who are saying that we're heading for the UK system (government take over & single payer), we're not.  They're proposing a plan in which all are required to purchase insurance, with a government plan in the mix to help cover those who are unemployed, etc.  This is much closer to the health care system in Germany and Luxemborg.

Third-  We're already rationing health care in this country.  We just force the consumer do the dirty work.  If your insurance companies refuses to pay for something (either outright or by dragging their feet), you have to decide if the care is worth it to you.  If you're uninsured, you have to decide what level of care you can afford (if any at all).  I view this as a much worse situation because instead of saying "this chemo will only extend your life 6 months but costs $20,000 per month",  we end up with situation that happened here with a child who died of meningitis because his mother couldn't afford to get dental work done on an abcess.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/163856/child_dies_for_lack_of_dental_care.html?cat=5

For a good overview of the other types of systems in other countries, check out the PBS Frontline documentary "sick around the world".  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

spwg

[edit:  corrected spelling mistake]

[charlevoix418]

Living in the Province of Quebec, Canada, lot of people here complaint about our Public Health Care System:  long waiting lists for operations especially cancer, a while ago, some patients were sent to Plattsburgh NY for treatment because our system could not supply.

But, if you ask the question to anyone here:  Would you like to change your Health System for the actual US one?  I am quite sure, the vast majority will answer NO!!!, even if we pay tons of taxes.

I am sailing every summer weekend on Lake Champlain which is located in the USA between Vermont and New York States since 1983 and I carry a travel health insurance with me.


I think that Washington is runned by lobbies:  Health, Guns, pharmaceutical, armement and others.  I beleive that the only chance ordinary US people has to change that is to support your actual President.


Good luck!


Raynald

[jaknight]

Holy Kiwi Fatman,

Why sure, I will be happy to have money taken out of my wallet, even if it is for something I don't want.  Take money from me and give it to someone who will be quite happy to use it.

Why not tax me all the way up to 70% and more, like some of the ritzies in England.... never could understand why Michael Caine wanted to come to America.

Why....Geez, I used to work for the US Government.... I was a Federal employee.  Why, there is never any corruption or graft, or nepotism, or waste, or unnecessary hiring, or favoritism, or the creation of huge unneeded bureaucracies.... and all those things happening in New Jersey right now are just a singular aberration.... these things don't really happen.... You never get anything jammed down your throat....

I am so glad that we were promised from, let's see.... 1910, 1912, or 1913 that income tax was only temporary and it would never rise above 2 1/2 percent anyway.... so don't worry....

~ ~ ~ jaknight ~ ~ ~

[jaknight]

From William Manchester's The Arms of Krupp:

"It is the judgement of history that between the Franco-Prussian War and World War I, German workmen traded freedom for security, with ghastly consequences for themselves, the Fatherland, and the entire world.  It was Michael Bakunin, the exiled Russian anarchist, who observed that the Germans' passion for authority made them shrink from freedom:  ""They want to be at once both master and slaves.""

"Yet the swap of liberty for creature comforts was not made meekly."

"Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that his own program had begun with a study of Bismarck's social reforms."

~ ~ ~ jaknight ~ ~ ~

[Glenn Stauffer]

Dad spent the last 15 years working for a private pediatric practice in town that regularly took .40 - .60 cents on the dollar for services rendered from TennCare, Medicare and private insurance companies.  In fact, private insurance companies would regularly hold payment on about 10% of claims for no reason whatsoever, if only because it took too much time and money to haggle with them to actually get the money owed (they usually claimed some sort of "paperwork error" which turned out to be complete BS).  This meant that they had to raise rates on people paying cash (without insurance) to make up for the difference AND hire more staff to double check paperwork and haggle with the insurance companies.  This is where the insurance companies in America are nickle-and-diming the medical providers AND private citizens to death.  They are acting as a middleman, largely passing cash from one hand to the next and taking a cut off the top.
Insurance companies have largely broken the system, especially as they have become less and less regulated.

I've seen that a lot.  We're regularly denied coverage on things.  I tell my wife - call them and argue.  It usually works.  I'm of the opinion that the insurance companies deny coverage automatically thinking that only a small percentage will argue the issue.

Any of you have experience with the French system?  I hear it actually works pretty well - generally better than the British or Canadian systems which we hear so much about.

[Retro Rocket]

How do you expect to convince anybody when you start off with an attack?  

Well ED i am not trying to convince anyone just trying to add a little personal experience. If you dislike the first line then the whole story because of that then you will miss a lot of good info. I am about as politically motivated as a dead fish,{i see things in two colours, black and white so i would make a dismal politician} but that statement was,as i said, we had a very popular PM until he started trying to change a lot of our systems to a more American type of "userpays" system and trying to force paid health care on everyone, i think he was in love with George just quietly and we were all getting pissed off with the way in which he was going to try and take our country, his popularity went south very fast and this was one of the main reasons. Funnily enough that was the only mention of politics, very closed minded approach.


Mick

[DammitDan]

Glenn,

Under my high deductible healthcare plan (through Blue Cross) I am afforded one free well-check per year as preventative care.  I haven't gone in for my physical yet this year, but last year I got a $75 bill from the insurance company where they simply denied part of my well-check claim.  I spent a full hour calling back and forth between the doctor's office I went to and the insurance company rep.  Had my Dad not been there to help out with advice about medical codes and pointing out what my policy actually provided me, it would have taken even longer.  Turns out the insurance company had simply "made a mistake" and "accidentally sent me a bill."

I only wonder how many people out there would have just paid the "accidental" $75 bill, and how often the insurance company would have taken the "mistaken" payment with nary a blink.

[jaknight]

Heavy Snip   This is where the insurance companies in America are nickle-and-diming the medical providers AND private citizens to death.  They are acting as a middleman, largely passing cash from one hand to the next and taking a cut off the top.
Insurance companies have largely broken the system, especially as they have become less and less regulated.

I've seen that a lot.  We're regularly denied coverage on things.  I tell my wife - call them and argue.  It usually works.  I'm of the opinion that the insurance companies deny coverage automatically thinking that only a small percentage will argue the issue.

Any of you have experience with the French system?  I hear it actually works pretty well - generally better than the British or Canadian systems which we hear so much about.

Insurance companies, bankers, and politicians for allowing it all to become the nightmare that it has become..... this is where I believe the massive amount of fault can be laid. 

To add insult to injury, tax dollars are used to bail out both industries without any notably significant change being made.

These two factions are very deserving of much stricter financial regulation.

~ ~ ~ jaknight ~ ~ ~

[BobbyR]

Glenn,

Under my high deductible healthcare plan (through Blue Cross) I am afforded one free well-check per year as preventative care.  I haven't gone in for my physical yet this year, but last year I got a $75 bill from the insurance company where they simply denied part of my well-check claim.  I spent a full hour calling back and forth between the doctor's office I went to and the insurance company rep.  Had my Dad not been there to help out with advice about medical codes and pointing out what my policy actually provided me, it would have taken even longer.  Turns out the insurance company had simply "made a mistake" and "accidentally sent me a bill."

I only wonder how many people out there would have just paid the "accidental" $75 bill, and how often the insurance company would have taken the "mistaken" payment with nary a blink.

Don;t feel bad Dan, they do that to Hospitals and Docs also. They stall and make money on the float.

[shacolaid]

Wow this is a can of worms, eh?

First, Anyone, who enters an ER with a medical condition will get treated, regardless of ability to pay.

I work in health care with children and have seen the entire spectrum. I have seen children come from England, Canada, and Middle Eastern countries to Pittsburgh for Organ transplants. Why? Because we are the BEST and have been for 25 years.

My hospital does an extremely large amount of care for free. Hence, we have a free care fund that during Christmas we try and raise money. Do we cover all of the expenses? Heck NO. Our hospital eats the cost and we as taxpayers pay the rest. My hospital is part of a larger network, UPMC, the second largest employer in the state of PA at 40,000 employees. Two years ago UPMC made 500 million dollars! Our CEO, Jeffery Romoff made 4-5 million last year. It is not just the insurance companies making money but the people running the hospitals.

We now have to get permission to fly via airplane to pick up children that are out of our referral area who may need our services because many times we are not receiving our reimbursement.

The whole system is screwed. Yeah, I do like the insurance I have. I get my yearly physical, my kids get their physicals. I pay 15$ for medications. I pay a fee out of every check.

I would like to see every one have health insurance, as long as it does not affect what I currently have. Is that selfish? Absolutely.

[HavocTurbo]

Ed-

I'm self-employed. Employed by a locally owned business, and employed by a state funded organization as a private contractor.

None of which offer insurance. And Medicaid or Medicare, which ever it is, has denied me several times.

I don't care about politics, and am willing to offer answers to your questions as to why I think this system is, and has been broken for a long time.

1.  What is the difference between what you think is being proposed and the system that we have now?  The overwhelming majority of Americans (nearly 90%) have private health insurance now, and we have government-run Medicaid for people who cannot afford to pay for private health insurance.  Is this an unfair question in any way?  If so, please tell me how.

To be honest, I haven’t looked into what is being proposed. I’m not that interested. Anything that comes from our current crop of politicians seems to me to be so filled with bias that it isn’t worth my time in looking. I prefer less government in some areas and more in others. I think that it is our moral obligation to take care of our countrymen. Regardless of income, sickness, or pre-existing condition.

2.  If you feel that the current American system is so bad for uninsured people, why don't you simply ask your representatives in the government to fix Medicaid, instead of trying to alter the private healthcare insurance that works pretty well for more than 280 million Americans?  Again, is this somehow not a fair question?  Why can't anyone here answer this without making attacks?  It seems like a VERY SIMPLE, DIRECT, QUESTION, and a SIMPLE, DIRECT, SOLUTION that would cost a lot less than the TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars that are destined for "universal" healthcare.  Does anybody see any problems with fixing Medicaid?

The problem is you can ask and ask and ask but if you aren’t a monetary contributor or someone in great personal power…. Your voice seems to go unheard. I see no problems with fixing Medicaid. Matter of fact I think we need to expand it for reasons stated above.

3.  I could be wrong, but somehow I have a sneaking suspicion that PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) just might be the slightest bit biased.  I don't want to ruffle any feathers here, but I don't know if I would be so ready to swallow too much information from a "documentary" that they paid for, and that has an emotionally charged title like "sick around the world".  That sounds a little too "Michael Moorish" to me.  I'd prefer to look at the facts on my own.

Everything seen on mainstream media should be taken with a grain of salt. Now a days everything is so washed and smoothed that it is hardly worth watching. We need to move away from broadcasting opinions about things and start posting all the facts again. Problem is… there is no money in it.

….I, for one, have always spent the extra money to insure myself and my family, even when I was making close to the poverty level near the beginning of my career.  …..I thought that it was worth the peace of mind knowing that if I crashed my motorcycle or got cancer or something, my issues would be covered.  I probably could have qualified for Medicare, back then, but I was simply too proud to ask for a hand-out from my fellow Americans.

I’m sorry for the paraphrasing but these stuck out to me. I’m a single white male in excellent health, although a little overweight, in my mid 20’s. COBRA for me is almost 1800 a month. I work 3 jobs and do every extra bit of work I can to be able to live the life I want. $1800 a month for something I hardly use seems extremely excessive to me. Regardless of the reasons…. It seems excessive.

First, Anyone, who enters an ER with a medical condition will get treated, regardless of ability to pay.

I cannot tell you how many times I have been turned away because I don't have insurance. Even though I have the ability to pay, I still get turned away because the lack of insurance is too much hassle.

There are many options to your standard "insurance". Saving your own money is one of them, HSA's are another. Although some of these require serious self discipline.


I’m not taking sides… I find that a neutral approach is best when dealing with Rep. Or Dems… I myself would rather we canned the whole lot and put people who are leaders in their fields in charge. Hell make service a requirement for everyone so that way we are giving at least something back to our country. And I’d rather political servants didn’t get a paycheck on top of all the given benefits… and they got audited every year by the IRS. As well as all of their programs. But I’m expecting too much. 

[ChrisR]

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.
The main complaint is waiting times for treatment, however there seems to be some sort of triage system at work and if treatment is required urgently it will be given quickly.
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.
Serious questions are being asked about how we can afford this level of universal care and I think within the next 20 years the NHS will not be able to sustain the relatively high level of care it provides at an acceptable cost to the country.
I can imagine over the next few years Britain and America will be working towards similar healthcare systems ( basic provision for all with a large private sector on top) but coming from opposite directions.

[Duke McDukiedook]

Health care in the US should be single payer, they have forced us into it (govt., insurance companies and for profit hospitals and care providers). They killed the golden goose, got too greedy, sorry fellas you lost it, give it up.

Take half the money we spend to bomb brown people and put that into the health care system and we would have the best health care in the world, hands down.

Problem is we here in America like to do these kinds of things on the cheap, that is what scares me about govt. health care here.

[BobbyR]

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.
The main complaint is waiting times for treatment, however there seems to be some sort of triage system at work and if treatment is required urgently it will be given quickly.
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.
Serious questions are being asked about how we can afford this level of universal care and I think within the next 20 years the NHS will not be able to sustain the relatively high level of care it provides at an acceptable cost to the country.
I can imagine over the next few years Britain and America will be working towards similar healthcare systems ( basic provision for all with a large private sector on top) but coming from opposite directions.

I find this to be one of the most objective assessments I have read so far. I hope the NHS stays sound and that the US begins a concerted movement in a new direction. The US Census Bureau reports 41M Americans are without any health coverage. That would equal the combined population of 24 of our 50 States.

[edbikerii]

So, 41 Million out of 307 Million is 13%, leaving the other 87% insured.

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.
The main complaint is waiting times for treatment, however there seems to be some sort of triage system at work and if treatment is required urgently it will be given quickly.
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.
Serious questions are being asked about how we can afford this level of universal care and I think within the next 20 years the NHS will not be able to sustain the relatively high level of care it provides at an acceptable cost to the country.
I can imagine over the next few years Britain and America will be working towards similar healthcare systems ( basic provision for all with a large private sector on top) but coming from opposite directions.

I find this to be one of the most objective assessments I have read so far. I hope the NHS stays sound and that the US begins a concerted movement in a new direction. The US Census Bureau reports 41M Americans are without any health coverage. That would equal the combined population of 24 of our 50 States.

[Retro Rocket]

OK, another partisan-politics rant worthy of ignoring before even finishing the first sentence.  How do you expect to convince anybody when you start off with an attack?  If you knew something more about American politics and healthcare than I do, I'd love to be educated, but as it stands now, it seems that you just want to insult.  I don't have time for that BS.

That was the only political comment in the whole answer, I HATE POLITICS and POLITICIANS.  You are ever ready to quote the media which is 90% rubbish so take the blinkers off ED. I tend to read and listen to everything, even if i don't like it,  it gives me a much more balanced and overall view of things.

 

So, 41 Million out of 307 Million is 13%

Thats twice the population of Australia.....You may thing that is statistically small but it is still a massive amount of people with NO cover, the other issue i see is the ridiculous costs you have to pay for cover per month, Over $400 a week, {and i know that some are much more expensive}, is a joke, especially if you have virtually no health problems and or money..  A lot of this is eased on people when the going is good, plenty of money around, but when things go down hill i bet there are a hell of a lot of the 87% now shelving their health care to help pay the bills, and i bet the health care costs continue to increase until only the rich or privileged are the only ones who can afford it. There is no way in the wide world anyone in Australia would pay that much for health cover, and there is no need to under our current system.


Mick 

[dpender836]

My 2 cents. It's amazing that Americans think that the Govt can or should solve all their problems, it was never set up to do that. bailing out bad business practices and now healthcare. All you have to do is look at how well they've handled the social programs so far. How about how well they are running social security and medicare, which they say will be insolvent by 2015, What happened to all the money they took in from all the seniors over the years? Now our seniors get to pay for supplement medical insurance every month, which puts a bigger burden on the already fixed incomes. Remember they have payed into that system all those years, what happened to their money, Oh yes Govt I.O.U's. Or talk to a Veteren, I'm sure there's some on the forum, How about the V.A. Everyone veteran I know Have had botched procedures or poor healthcare, that's gov't in the medical business for you. We 've got fulltime soldiers whose families who have to get food stamps to fed themselves. They can't run these programs, I don't have faith in them running a bigger national healthcare program. The problem is Greed and corruption in Washington, dem or rep, they both suck and forgot why they are there. Ask yourself why a person running for congress spends millions of his own money for a job that pays a  couple 100k, it's because all the money they make from pacts and companies who pay them to be on their boards, they are being paid to make laws that will profit them. Bottom line senator term limits are a change you can believe in, then maybe things could truly change.

[Frankenkit]

Just thought I'd throw this in,  both because I love stirring the pot and because I believe HMOs and for-profit hospitals are a terrible concept. 

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2819

[DammitDan]

So, 41 Million out of 307 Million is 13%, leaving the other 87% insured.

A measly 41 Million people, eh.