Obamacare – what gives?

Home Forum Chat Forum Obamacare – what gives?

Viewing 45 posts - 46 through 90 (of 96 total)
  • Obamacare – what gives?
  • Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    The UK spends 8% of our GDP on healthcare.

    The US spends 16%.

    UK average life expectancy is 79 years, the US is 78.1

    Clearly our NHS system is awful 😕

    5thElefant
    Member

    oh no wobbliscott my mortgage is a huuuuge debt, how can I end this madness, should we abandon the entire system???

    no, its just debt ill pay it off in the end, or ill die either way its fine
    Take out another couple of mortgages then. And another. You won’t pay it off then. Doesn’t matter though, you’ll die. Trouble is your children inherit the debt (national debt that is).

    At some point you have to stop borrowing money.

    The UK spends 8% of our GDP on healthcare.

    The US spends 16%.

    UK average life expectancy is 79 years, the US is 78.1

    Clearly our NHS system is awful
    What’s the life expectancy in the US for people with health cover? They’re the ones objecting. You may find the NHS is awful in comparison (I have no idea, but it would be interesting).

    Junkyard
    Member

    They may spend more than us on health care (but also have 6 times the population) – but like us they can’t afford it

    Points and laughs
    Your ability to dig a hole and then ignorantly jump in it is entertaining.As for cannot afford it [ is there nothing welfare related you dont say this lie to ?]we are the 7 th richest country in the world we can afford it easily – its a measure of your morality not your wallet.

    Clearly the NHS delivers for a much cheaper price than the US model- well for those of us who can count.

    dragon
    Member

    The NHS is adequate if you’re articulate, intelligent and pushy. If you don’t really know what’s going on and let them get on with it it is very shit indeed.

    +1

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    If you don’t really know what’s going on and let them get on with it it is very shit indeed.

    “very shit” compared to what exactly?

    Compared to US style private healthcare where letting them “get on with it” could bankrupt you for life?

    5thElefant
    Member

    “very shit” compared to what exactly?

    Compared to US style private healthcare where letting them “get on with it” could bankrupt you?
    Very shit as in you’ll die unless you insist there is something wrong with you and/or actions needs to be taken.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    I’d just like to point out that having health insurance in the US doesn’t mean you’ll never have to pay. Insurance usually only covers a certain amount, the rest you have to find yourself. Most policies don’t include childbirth either.

    The NHS is not universally shit if you don’t put pressure on them. They do often produce great care of their own accord. The nightmare stories are only a portion of all stories. However I don’t know what proportion.

    Even in a private system you still get bad diagnoses, bad doctors and bad treatment.

    Very shit as in you’ll die unless you insist there is something wrong with you and/or actions needs to be taken.

    That’s far from the norm.

    dragon
    Member

    That’s far from the norm.

    Not in my experience. I can list a whole heap of people who were fobbed off with excuses, and only after pushing and pushing, got the tests done that revealed the problem.

    amedias
    Member

    And would they all have died shortly after as 5thE suggests?

    And would they all have been in a position to pay for those tests if they were not free?
    I can understand the annoyance at having to insist and push for the correct diagnosis but when you look at the fact that they did get diagnosed and then ( presumably ) treated for free it doesn’t look so bad does it?

    By all means work to improve the system and it’s flaws, but denouncing it as shit in favour of a system that is arguably shitter and even more flawed doesn’t really make sense to me.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    Not in my experience. I can list a whole heap of people who were fobbed off with excuses, and only after pushing and pushing, got the tests done that revealed the problem.

    I can give you some counter stories, for balance.

    My dad was fine, a routine test (that they didn’t have to be persuaded to do) revealed early bowel cancer. They gave him great care, loads of information and were incredibly nice. They they operated on him and sorted him out well. They didn’t have to be persuaded of anything.

    Same happened to my uncle.

    jfletch
    Member

    Not in my experience.

    Well that proves it then! 😯

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber
    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    You still have to press healthcare professionals to do stuff in other systems, it’s just that the reasons vary. In the US you have to pressure the insurance companies instead, and they are generally a lot harder to convince.

    Very shit as in you’ll die unless you insist there is something wrong with you and/or actions needs to be taken.

    bollox. absolute and utter bollox.
    I know of bad experiences, made worse by the fact that the people experiencing them were ill at the time (which is why they were dealing with the NHS), but overall, my experiences and those of the majority of people I know have been positive.
    Interestingly, the people who are supporting the NHS are providing personal examples of how excellent the NHS is, whilst those critical of the NHs aren’t. And I suspect that when those examples finally do arrive, they’ll slightly further removed from [persona experience than mine or molgrips’ examples.

    Premier Icon BoardinBob
    Subscriber

    One glaring aspect that is almost universally ignored in the debates is the fact that the PPACA addresses the insurance side of healthcare, but there is virtually nothing done to improve the provision side.

    In simple terms, insurers are required to offer coverage and not deny anyone coverage because of pre-ex conditions. They’re also required to work to a maximum profitablity level and any additional profit must be returned to customers. There are also caps on how much they can charge.

    For the US public, they’re now required to purchase health insurance. If they don’t there are financial penalties and tax implications.

    However for the US healthcare providers, they still have the ability to charge however much they want. There are no provisions limiting them on how much they charge for treating someone and subsequent cost to the insurer. This is a fundamental flaw within the PPACA so no one expects US healthcare costs to drop at all as the hospitals and doctors still need paid.

    fanatic278
    Member

    Having lived in the US I can definately say I would choose the UK system.

    I found the excessive medicalisation to be infuriating. As one example (I have many), when my children went for immunisations the whole process took 4 hours. It started with a whole bunch of health tests performed by a nurse (eye, hearing, blood pressure etc). The children were already nervous about injections, so even these simple tests were daunting to them. We were then shown to a room where we waited to be seen by a doctor. He spent ages asking us basic medical questions that could have been easily asked in a questionarre before we even arrived. The kids sat there gradually becoming more petrified. He then left and then the nurse came back with a bucket load of injections, some of which I question were necessary (e.g. chicken pox). By this point my two young girls (age 2 and 4) were absolutely inconsolable with fear. To my shame I never stopped the process when I should. The children had to be pinned to the bed (physically restrained) as they each took 6 injections.

    In contrast, the process in the UK took us 30 minutes. Our son was allowed to sit on his mother’s lap as a nurse (no doctors) quickly gave the injections. He barely noticed.

    The private US system is designed to mug them for money.

    dragon
    Member

    Well one died sadly about 9 months later. The rest have either used their works private healthcare insurance and got things sorted that route or are still waiting for appointments and further tests. In one case the NHS wouldn’t authorise a UT scan, which within a week of the private care had been requested, performed, analysed and the required operation booked in.

    If you push and use your connections then the NHS can be great, but stick to the system and wait for the appointment letter and it can be utter sh*t.

    I don’t want a US style healthcare system, but equally the NHS as it is, is far from perfect, and we could learn more from looking at systems in other EU countries.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    As one example (I have many), when my children went for immunisations the whole process took 4 hours. It started with a whole bunch of health tests performed by a nurse (eye, hearing, blood pressure etc)

    This is something else that’s become apparent since knowing and talking to lots of Americans. The more they do to you, the more they can charge the insurance company for. Their system is designed around profit, either deliberately or accidentally. I think that the providers may think they are doing patients a favour by doing all these extra procedures, but they often aren’t.

    Our system like to save money, but sometimes this is in our interests. They focus a lot on prevention because it’s in the NHS’s and our interests. Conversely, prevention is NOT in medical companies interests in the US. I don’t know if any of them are that cynical, however, but there’s no impetus on them to prevent the condition in the first place.

    For example, my in-laws – high cholesterol? Have some pills. Oh yeah, maybe lose some weight maybe, if you like, whatever.

    fanatic278
    Member

    The other benefit of the UK system is that it provides competition to the private UK health insurance. Nobody in the UK will pay $12k a year for healthcare when you can get it for ‘free’.

    And if you don’t like the NHS, just get yourself a rather good value private insurance plan. Mine only costs £1300 a year for a family of 5.

    And I don’t resent subsidising the rest who choose to stick with NHS – I still use it myself (e.g. GP visits, childbirth, A&E etc).

    Premier Icon ac282
    Subscriber

    Will that £1300 get you complete coverage, or will you be back on the NHS for anything really serious?

    Premier Icon ac282
    Subscriber

    People should also remember it is the US sate which is in huge debt. there is still an enormous amount of privately held wealth in the US. Whether or not the US or UK can afford health care is a question of political will rather than absolute cost.

    5thElefant
    Member

    Not in my experience. I can list a whole heap of people who were fobbed off with excuses, and only after pushing and pushing, got the tests done that revealed the problem.

    That’s my experience too. Two people would have died, one did and another two were very dodgy situations.

    Apart from the one who died, all were pushy so it wasn’t a problem. Had she have been pushy, she’d have been fine (or at least would have stood a chance).

    In conclusions, the NHS is adequate.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    In conclusions, the NHS is adequate variable

    5thElefant
    Member

    In conclusions, the NHS is variable but adequate if you’re pushy

    clubber
    Member

    In conclusion, the standard of debate on STW is variable but adequate if you ignore other people’s posts.

    😉

    amedias
    Member

    And just for comparison, how many people do you know who have made use of the NHS and received ‘adequate’ service ( perhaps even more than once in their lives) and not said a word about it because it was just normal and expected?

    Nobody thinks the NHS is perfect but a few bad examples are not indicative of ‘the norm’ as described earlier. Annoyingly more frequent than ideal maybe, but certainly not the norm.

    fanatic278
    Member

    Will that £1300 get you complete coverage, or will you be back on the NHS for anything really serious?

    It’s comprehensive cover with no yearly limit. It seems to cover everything you can think of. Obviously excluding child birth and A&E.

    Maybe that’s the government’s new big idea: make the NHS just shit enough to get those of us who can afford it to pay for private healthcare.

    marcus7
    Member

    Slightly OT, but i got a call from the PRU today asking me if id like one of their nice reps to visit my company to show how cheaply they could provide pivate medical insurance. I let him talk through his scrip then politely to him that as a company we were not interested and i felt that moraly it was wrong to que jump the current system, he replied that what would i do if i had something “untreatable” i replied “probably die i guess if its untreatable”….. He was foxed by that but didnt give up, he offered me treatments to help with the stopping of smoking (no one in the company smokes) and really seemed suprised that i thought it was wrong and that the NHS has, in my experience given me the medical care I need. Of course this wasn’t entirely true and if you want to go private i havn’t much of an issue but as im fully paid up on my NI contributions I’m going to stick with that!!

    Seeing as we’re citing anecdotes, can we cite the examples of American citizens with genetic disorders that are (effectively) denied healthcare cover (through extoritonate fees) and are forced into marriages to gain health cover thru the spouses employment cover!?

    Or the no 1 cause of bankruptancy in the US due to medical bills racked up and insurance companies not paying out!?

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Subscriber

    You do sometimes have to be pushy to get necessary treatment in the NHS, but anyone who thinks that being charged by private companies at twice the current market rate, and then taking their insurance company to court just to try and get back some (not all) of that cost, is a better system… is probably doing it from an ideological standpoint, rather than a cost benefit analysis.

    crankboy
    Member

    Re bad outcomes it is important to keep in mind that the NHS and private health care both deal with sick people who can for a variety of reasons be hard to diagnose and just occasionally will die anyway or develop a worse or different condition . The NHS probably deals with a wider range of illnesses and accidents so by definition and not fault will have a higher number of what are perceived to be bad outcomes.

    My friends uncle went private for an opp that went wrong and then had to be transferred to NHS for the life saving intensive care.

    My mum required an opp on each foot for New Labour statistical reasons the left foot was treated in a private hospital the right in an NHS one (a few months and miles apart)both opps went well and were performed by the same surgeon the only perceivable difference was the private hospital shut her in a single room with a tv and left her alone for hours the NHS put her on a ward and kept walking by and checking on her.

    Having had the NHS assist in conception and delivery of my son I am a big fan . Having seen the staggering cost and overtreatment in the US I am not a fan of the US system .
    The Misdiagnosis anecdotes above are concerning and should not be lightly dismissed but there is nothing to say that such incidents do not occur in the US where you can have the added insult of a correct diagnosis followed by years of fighting to get the insurance provider to accept that your treatment / need is covered by their policy .

    Premier Icon richmtb
    Subscriber

    Having seen the staggering cost and overtreatment in the US I am not a fan of the US system .
    The Misdiagnosis anecdotes above are concerning and should not be lightly dismissed but there is nothing to say that such incidents do not occur in the US where you can have the added insult of a correct diagnosis followed by years of fighting to get the insurance provider to accept that your treatment / need is covered by their policy .

    Does anyone actually believe that the answer to the NHS’ faults is to replace it with a system that has to work in the best interests of its shareholders rather than its patients?

    dragon
    Member

    Maybe that’s the government’s new big idea: make the NHS just shit enough to get those of us who can afford it to pay for private healthcare.

    I’m not sure if it’s a government policy, but it’s more like a drift over time where the well off will go private more and more. In the end we will end up with a 2 tier system through the backdoor. With the NHS in 20 years time left just for the poor, the old and as a last resort.

    lemonysam
    Member

    I’m not sure if it’s a government policy, but it’s more like a drift over time where the well off will go private more and more.

    Out of interest, when do you think the NHS performed substantially better than it has done in recent years?

    benz
    Member

    Generally the NHS do a sound job – I’m stating this without hard data ‘though.

    Currently I and my family do benefit from private healthcare and TBH I am grateful we have this – simply because (per Friday thread) it may have avoided a future issue.

    From a caring for my follow humans standpoint, would I be happy with an NI increase or indeed a direct contribution to ensure that more get healthcare?

    The answer is yes, but I am not currently burdened with what I deem unaffordable health insurance costs.

    Spending on some other ‘projects’ needs to be seriously considered – high-speed rail; Trident replacement, etc.

    The NHS is not 100% perfect but what about those systems (France?) which are benchmarked as more perfect – what could we learn and apply from those?

    From a UK v US standpoint, I wonder that the % of income actual goes on tax, etc too?

    If you mean national income, the US is approx half the UK (tax as % GDP)

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    Income tax or total tax?

    Mol, if that was a question for me, I was talking about total tax revenues/GDP.

    benz
    Member

    Ok, so assuming average UK and US incomes.

    What % of that would go on ‘healthcare’ – either direct or indirect including private healthcare insurance?

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    From what I can tell, you could be paying $3-400/mo generally. Or your employer would be.

    The biggest problem of course is that if you are working part time or low paid crappy jobs you won’t get healthcare with your job. And these people are the ones who are least able to afford their own insurance. When you are struggling to put food on the table $300/mo is an impossible sum.

    Premier Icon tonyg2003
    Subscriber

    Plenty of the people I employ in the US get healthcare from my company and do well with this as a benefit. It’s worth $100’s of a month. However lots of people have no employment contracts, have to pay their own healthcare and plenty of people in what would be relatively good jobs over here are on hourly contracts with no chance of ever getting healthcare coverage. It’s a system that I just don’t like.

    You also personally have to deal with insurance companies which can be more daunting that dealing with the NHS.

    clubber
    Member

    From what I can tell, you could be paying $3-400/
    mo generally. Or your employer would be.

    the numbers I heard from my us colleagues are much higher than that – like 3 or 4 times more. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of course.

    I’m guessing private health care (in the US and UK) is paid from net salary!? So your fees actually cost you an extra 20 or 40% more ( in the UK) unlike paying from your taxes, which are of course, by definition, out your gross salary?!

    TooTall
    Member

    the numbers I heard from my us colleagues are much higher than that – like 3 or 4 times more

    You can pay a lot more if you want to or if you have conditions that let them charge you. The Affordable Healthcare Act is making that a lot better now.

    Their figure may also include dental and optical cover as well.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    I was talking about the most basic care for that price. So would still be pretty likely to face big bills if anything complicated happened.

Viewing 45 posts - 46 through 90 (of 96 total)

The topic ‘Obamacare – what gives?’ is closed to new replies.