[Closed] the wonderful world of private healthcare US style

May I be excused from being "educated" please? Thanks awfully 😀

EDIT: given the following posts, I don't believe that pointing us at a bunch of greedy, self-serving barstewards counts as education...

you have managed so far 😉

May I be excused from being "educated" please? Thanks awfully

Of course, though to be fair, I don't think anyone ever thought you were.

It's not an admirable intention, it's a moral imperative surely? I don't want to return to a Dickensian nightmare of cholera epidemics or endemic rabies - I also appreciate that neither of these things are happening in the US but there is most definitely an underclass consisting of those who can't afford to treat their ringworm (as mentioned on page one).

It's not down to 'targetting' where your tax dollars go, it's down to voting for a party which will do [u]The Right Thing[/u] with them. We are developed enough as a race to have some morals aren't we?

It's not down to 'targetting' where your tax dollars go, it's down to voting for a party which will do The Right Thing with them.

hmmm. There isn't one of those. Hence the Right libertarian argument for minimum government control. You can then choose where more of your money goes. If you want to use it to pay for healthcare for those living in poverty, you can do that, if you a=want to use it to fund students to go to clown school, you can do that too. However, you don't get to tell anyone else how to spend their money.

Morals vary from person to person,(hence the existence of the RSPCA and OXFAM) so why should you be forced to make what is essentially a charitable donation to a cause for which you have no sympathy.

Right so we can finally agree on something - I also find it hard to vote for anyone. Given the choice though, at a very, very basic level, there exists one party hell-bent on deconstructing the NHS and another with a slightly less damaging remit.

The problem with "the Right libertarian argument for minimum government control" is that once you hand over the purse strings to those who earn enough to actually pay tax through earnings (rather than having it taken out of their Job Seekers' allowance), said earners will skew the system in their favour , rather than helping those most in need.

I honestly feel that I can't go any further with this - frankly, either you're a **** or you're not (not you personally). Either you have a sense of "dae as ye wid be done by" or you don't.

Yes! I've won the 'stay-up-late-and-argue-on-teh-interwebz' competition. Daren't go to sleep now 😐

In addition to the discussion about whether (well, really, how much) the government should be providing healthcare insurance, there were also questions in the Obama healthcare plan around whether the federal government should be providing healthcare insurance and how it should be paid for.

Ask Dan The Man HanNAN! He likes to sit on US chat shows, extolling their system and rubbishing ours.

If there's ever a man who deserves a proper kicking, all his wealth taken away from him and left in a country where having no money would mean he coon't get any health care, it's him...

[url= http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/229111.php ]Man Holds Up Bank For $1 In Attempt To Get Medical Treatment In Prison
[/url]

[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-wonderful-world-of-private-healthcare-us-style#post-2691146 ]Here too[/url] j_me.

The story in ST mag (issue 2?) about the SSWC at Afan always struck a chord with me - the bit about the American guy who crashed breaking his collarbone IIRC and saying that he didn't want to go to hospital because he didn't have any health insurance.

and left in a country where having no money would mean he coon't get any health care, it's him...

Well Dan Hannan is from Peru, I don't know what the health care provisions are like there for people who can't afford to pay, but even with all his money, I'm guessing Hannan wouldn't like it there very much right now - a couple of weeks ago Peru fell in line with just about every other Latin American country and elected a left-wing president. I suspect health care provisions for those without much money in Peru will possibly improve significantly.........he will be gutted.

The story in ST mag (issue 2?) about the SSWC at Afan always struck a chord with me - the bit about the American guy who crashed breaking his collarbone IIRC and saying that he didn't want to go to hospital because he didn't have any health insurance.

n the US it's 'free' as well, just instead of paying taxes, they pay an insurance premium, much as we do. Except they don't need to pay for the folks not paying into the scheme as well, so overall, the win!

Most insurance policies in the US are limited cover. They only cover you for so much money, and lots of illnesses are not included. Childbirth is also not included typically, so you have to shell out.

And if you want to you are perfectly free to pay for private healthcare over here so it's the best of both worlds.
Sure but then you are paying for 2 systems, one of which you don't use.

Private healthcare is usually supplemental, so you will use both systems even if privately insured - in the UK.

The problem with choosing where your money goes is that many people need some kind of human connection with people in order to feel compassion. So the rich, on the whole, will make suprious allegations about the poor and deprived in order to justify not helping them out.

Many people don't give money to beggars because they will spend it all on drink/they probably drive a mercedes. Now I'm not suggesting supporting the begging economy is good of course, but the reasons people often give are interesting.

To put it in perspective, I never appreciated the NHS until I moved to Ireland. The healthcare system here is pretty good but... A visit to A&E when your kid needs 3 stitches? 50 euro please. A visit to a GP practice? 50-100 Euro plus meds please. A dentist? Sell your kidney. Most people in employment have to take chances or buy some form of a private insurance. We were quoted (2+1 family) approx. 2500 Euro p/a for the medical insurance.

S'funny you should mention childbirth molgrips, i friend moved over to the USA some while ago and we still keep in touch. He's a petrol head and makes a little jibe about the petrol prices every now and then. Then he became a dad, too twins. Despite having insurance, this set him back £40,000. Thats pounds.

Fine if you have the money, but what happens if you don't. Do they just let you get on with it? Sell your house/car/mobile phone to pay for it? Treat them and them sue afterwards?

Personally, im rather proud of the NHS.

Fine if you have the money, but what happens if you don't.

And what's worse about childbirth is that everyone has the full doctor and nurses operating theatre childbirth treatment. Even if you don't want it, and have no complications. So you have to pay for something you don't want or need. It's almost as if the hospital wants to make as much profit as possible.....

Fine if you have the money, but what happens if you don't. Do they just let you get on with it? Sell your house/car/mobile phone to pay for it? Treat them and them sue afterwards?

Apparently, what they do with medical bills in general is give you a massive debt and then you pay what you can forever - even if this means you die before the debt is repaid.

to the degree that 2 made a point of being overjoyed in coming over here with pregnant wives to get better & cheap health care/delivery.

And who said Americans don't get irony.

Apparently, what they do with medical bills in general is give you a massive debt and then you pay what you can forever - even if this means you die before the debt is repaid.

When debating about anything political in the US you have to remember that their entire political systems in very right wing and libertarian. It is ingrained in the large majority of US people that they look after themselves, spend their own money and they make their own choices. To a person in the UK , certainly someone who has a political persuasion that is somewhat left of centre, this is wrong and should be sorted out but to a US national it is not.

To us in the UK provision of healthcare to all is a given and that any erosion of this is to be fought against. However, in the US this smells like the government spending their money and making decisions for them, something they are against.

So let’s not say this is there systems is wrong and ours is right because, this side of the pond the political and social culture is so very, very different and that it is nigh on impossible to see their side.

why should you be forced to make what is essentially a charitable donation to a cause for which you have no sympathy

So let’s not say this is there systems is wrong and ours is right

PS watched the regan video now - essentially if you have a socilaised healthcare they will tell you where to work [doctors and this is wrong] and before you know it the state will tell your kids in school where to work/what job to do. Enterprise is great. It was mainly paranoia from what I could tell and seemed scared about what might happen rather than saying why it was bad as an idea. If you have socilaised healthcare you will inevitably get scoialism ...so hope yet for me an ernie

That's not the point, don. If we were to follow that line of thinking, then anything that has the potential to require medical treatment should only be carried out by poeple that can afford the afforementioned medical treatment. Including mountain biking.......

What about hereditary illness and babies born with medical conditions?

So let’s not say this is there systems is wrong and ours is right because, this side of the pond the political and social culture is so very, very different and that it is nigh on impossible to see their side

Except that one system cares for everyone, and the other system leaves millions up sh*t creek so that a small percentage can be slightly richer (arguably).

Hmm.

Having lived, worked and paid for healthcare in both the UK and US I can quite happily state that neither system is perfect.

The UK is good in the fact that no matter what situation you find yourself in life, you don't have to worry about having access to a doctor. The downside is that the service provided is not as good as the service in the states when you do go. Preventative healthcare seems to be limited to cervical screening, annual physicals are pretty much non-existant and the access to the best drugs is restricted.

In the US the level of healthcare you receive is superb, but bordering on the edge of wasteful. Due to the way it is set up you pretty much have blood tests, scans and any other test you could possibly want if you just go to the doctor with a cut finger.

But, the hospitals are clean and new, the equipment and treatment is state of the art and the level of service is not limited based on NHS statistics, it truelly is a personal service.

Where the system falls down is the level of healthcare which is open to all.

Don't kid yourselves though, you pay for healthcare in both countries, just in the UK you have no say in it.

molgrips, I agree with you but I am not a US national, I an a UK national and so believe the NHS is great and should not be messed with and healthcare for all is ingrained in my mind as a given. I am happy (within reason) to trust my government to spend my money on this.
But, you have to remember in the US that is not the case. I'm not saying this is right or wrong but it is why these reforms are getting so much opposition.

When debating about anything political in the US you have to remember that their entire political systems in very right wing and libertarian. It is ingrained in the large majority of US people that they look after themselves, spend their own money and they make their own choices. To a person in the UK , certainly someone who has a political persuasion that is somewhat left of centre,[i][b] this is wrong and should be sorted out[/i][/b] but to a US national it is not.

I disagree, being somewhat 'left of centre' myself, I agree that people should look after themselves and make their own choices, where I don't agree is that - that particular tightrope should be walked without a safety net

the bit about the American guy who crashed breaking his collarbone IIRC and saying that he didn't want to go to hospital because he didn't have any health insurance

What about hereditary illness and babies born with medical conditions?

There is free medical cover in these cases.

Except that one system cares for everyone, and the other system leaves millions up sh*t creek so that a small percentage can be slightly richer (arguably).

And the worst / most crazy thing is that they spend more per person, to only cover some people, and without particularly good health outcomes even for insured people. How crazy is that.

In the US it's 'free' as well, just instead of paying taxes, they pay an insurance premium, much as we do. Except they don't need to pay for the folks not paying into the scheme as well, so overall, the win!

Except that the overheads of insurance are so much that they actually end up spending way more than you would on tax even ignoring things that aren't included like having kids.

Or maybe you have to think twice before having kids.

Or riding a bike (if you don't have health insurance and get an ambulance, you'll easily be into the tens of thousands of dollars before you get to the hospital - people will literally beg bystanders not to call ambulances.

Or getting knocked unconscious even whilst having insurance and having the luck to be taken to an emergency room at a hospital that your insurance doesn't cover - when you wake up, they'll check your insurance details and transfer you, but you still owe them for what happened beforehand.

Or having a long disease that goes outside the time limits of your insurance cover.

Yeah, brilliant system.

What about hereditary illness and babies born with medical conditions?

There is free medical cover in these cases.

Free and very limited medical cover though surely?

If it is medicare, It isn't like you get the full doctor blah treatment free, you just get 'medically necessary treatment', ie. whatever is needed to keep you alive. So no preventative stuff like you'd get on the NHS. Oh and you still have to pay some money towards hospital stays, are supposed to pay 20% of drug costs etc. etc.

molgrips, you make good arguments which I am personally inclined to agree with, however, I have tried those on the forum linked to. I do encourage you to go there and try those arguments. There are some uninformed numpties on there, but actually very very few. There are also some very very smart folks on there, the danger occurs when you get them confused with each other.

Or riding a bike (if you don't have health insurance and get an ambulance, you'll easily be into the tens of thousands of dollars before you get to the hospital - people will literally beg bystanders not to call ambulances.

Its their choice.

Or getting knocked unconscious even whilst having insurance and having the luck to be taken to an emergency room at a hospital that your insurance doesn't cover - when you wake up, they'll check your insurance details and transfer you, but you still owe them for what happened beforehand.

Myth

And the worst / most crazy thing is that they spend more per person, to only cover some people, and without particularly good health outcomes even for insured people. How crazy is that

It's cos the system's a racket! Hospitals need to make profit, so they tend to do as many treatments as expensively as possible. The insurance companies grumble a bit but then they just pass the cost onto the employers who pay it. Which squeezes salaries for the employees.

We're talking $3-500 a month as far as I know, for insurance.

EDIT: Holy cow.. In 2009 the average family policy was [url= http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm ]$13,375[/url]!

I agree with you but I am not a US national, I an a UK national and so believe the NHS is great

Mrs Grips is a US national, and she also believes the NHS is great...

CM - I can't get involved in those kind of debates. They boil down to one thing. That is, should the government force society to look after the disadvantaged, or should people take that responsibility themselves.

However, I suspect that some people are adopting that argument to cover up for a) greed in wanting lower taxes and smaller govt and b) mistrust of government.. even if they don't realise it themselves.

To put some perspecive:

Average Single cover isurance policy - $4800 a year
Which in real money is £3000 a year, or £250 a month.

How much do you pay for the NHS a month? I know it differs per person but my National Insurance contributions in the UK far exceed £250 a month.

CM - I can't get involved in those kind of debates. They boil down to one thing. That is, should the government force society to look after the disadvantaged, or should people take that responsibility themselves.

However, I suspect that some people are adopting that argument to cover up for a) greed in wanting lower taxes and smaller govt and b) mistrust of government.. even if they don't realise it themselves

I've been down some of that road with them, you are right, they don't feel govt. should be forcing anyone to do anything, beyond a very few essentials (i forget the details). They deny the greed claim (a), by attesting to the voluntary work and charitable contributions they make and they happily admit to (b) and provide evidence as to why that is entirely justifiable, especially with Obama in place. What is clear is that they don't know much about the UK, but they are quick learners! Honestly, try them!!

Or getting knocked unconscious even whilst having insurance and having the luck to be taken to an emergency room at a hospital that your insurance doesn't cover - when you wake up, they'll check your insurance details and transfer you, but you still owe them for what happened beforehand.

Myth

At least in California, this was true until I think 2009 - if you got taken to an out of network hospital (not contracted with your insurer), or got treated in emergency by a doctor who is not contracted to your provider, you were eligible for much higher fees. In other states you still have to pay - if you get taken to an ER which is out of network your healthcare provider will pay what it thinks are 'reasonable' costs for the service you got, then you get billed for the balance if the hospital thinks it should charge more - and some insurers make up ridiculously low costs for the 'reasonable' cost, so in practice you end up paying a lot. The practice is banned in 10 states, but not everywhere by a long shot.

Read more below if you like:

http://scrubsandsuits.com/news/california-bans-out-of-network-billing-for-er-group

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Features/Insuring-Your-Health/Emergency-Room-Costs.aspx

I know it differs per person

You say that as if it's a small detail!

It's already been established that the US pays in one way or another much more for healthcare than we do as a percentage of GDP.

Your cover is also FAR FAR better than those typical US policies you talk about, even when you don't consider being unemployed, having a temp job, having a rubbish job and so on.

Plus national insurance does not fund the NHS, so it's a pointless comparison.

Average Single cover isurance policy - $4800 a year
Which in real money is £3000 a year, or £250 a month.

How much do you pay for the NHS a month? I know it differs per person but my National Insurance contributions in the UK far exceed £250 a month.

So in the US who would pay that $4800/pa for you're parents/granparents/disabled relatives if they couldn't work or had enough savings?

so why should you be forced to make what is essentially a charitable donation to a cause for which you have no sympathy.

However the problem with the inexorable decline of our society towards an american model is the focus on me, me, me 🙄
I was brought up and indoctrinated in a very Tory family, I started having strong doubts about the wisdom of all this by the mid-80's.
Then I went to the US and came back quite rabidly socialist in disgust at the poverty and lack of health care there.

I do believe it's called civilization, even the Romans gave bread to it's citizens.

That's a really bad example!

It's proven that having a health system that cares for all benefits all - just think pandemics, measles & mumps.

Yes, all true, the herd immunity stuff is all correct, and further The Spirit Level shows that greater equality is better in health and social terms for all starta of society, not just on average.

So in the US who would pay that $4800/pa for you're parents/granparents/disabled relatives if they couldn't work or had enough savings?

Medicare and Medicaid systems provide a level of cover, and the new recovery and reinvestment act has helped this out.

But what does that £250 cover LHS? In my freinds case his insurance didnt cover him for childbirth (didnt cover his wife more to the point). What about long time care?

Does that £250 equate to the level of cover provided by the NHS?

I seem to recall that, somethig like 40,000+ US people die anually due to lack of health insurance. That seems a bit high to me, so there probably a bit of "figure massage" going on. If that is to be believed, that's pretty harsh. Not sure how the NHS would compare to it though.