Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/21/verone-one-dollar-robbery-healthcare ]I mean WTF, what kind of sick deranged idiot would ever think that this was a good way of running a healthcare system.[/url]
The more I learn about their system the more shocked I am. It's a disgrace in a rich country imo.
i always remember an American uni colleague describing the NHS as socialist health care.
I dont understand why anyone would not want free access to health care for all citizens tbh but they are quite anti this IM limited E
I too don't understand the argument of NHS = bad and US Healthcare = good.
Crazy way of treating your citizens.
Ask Dan The Man HanNAN! He likes to sit on US chat shows, extolling their system and rubbishing ours.
I dread to think what the cost for my treatment would have been in the US, 5 weeks intensive care won't be cheap, Aren't medical bills the biggest cause for personal bankruptcy in the US?
Junkyard - Member
i always remember an American uni colleague describing the NHS as socialist health care.
There seems to be a section of American society that refers to any level of government assistance as socialist, or more frequently communism. I'm not sure if this is due to ignorance as to what socialism or communism is or if it's to scare people away from it because of the thought that anything from communism must be bad no matter what.
what amazed me was the right-wing shitkickers, out in iowa or some such shit-hole, voting against medical reform.
A more blatant example of Turkeys voting for Christmas, its difficult to imagine.
But, hey, better to die an honest democratic death through lack of medical facilities, than live in a goddamn socialist state.!!!!
spent 3months at a summer camp in the usa working with kids mostly on welfare from inner city boston
mass is a rich state and their healthcare apparently better than most
but i was gobsmacked by their poor access to basic medicine; ear infections that stank like you wouldnt believed, ringworm, random stuff that antibiotics would clear up in no time not to mention more serious stuff
i know that things can be grim in this country- ive worked with kids in harringey -but the richest country in the world is only that if youre one of the haves
Better get aquainted - it's where we are heading.
Try visiting www.greylabyrinth.com and asking a few of those questions. try the [url= http://www.greylabyrinth.com/discussion/viewforum.php?f=7&sid=7c72ac1d82020b3082cb340f02035fdd ]off topic[/url] section
It's not so much the idea of universal free healthcare that our US cousins object to, It's the idea of paying for the healthcare of someone who makes no effort to pay for their own. It's not so far from the opinions of some of the folks on here.
I spend a fair amount of time over on Fark.com, and the forum on their politics tab is, quite frankly, terrifying. There is a stalwart of Republican people in America that flat out despise the reforms that Obama made to the US healthcare system. I imagine them literally fading in and out of consciousness at their keyboards through sheer rage, as they bash out some half-baked opinion about why The Government providing a basic level of healthcare to everyone in their society is a very bad, very socialist, very un-American thing. I mean, the current leading Republican candidate for the Presidential race seems to be basing his entire campaign on reversing every single one of the laws and reforms Obama has brought in. On his first day in office 😯
Spent 3 years in USA. It's two countries that happen to share a land mass like some sort of patchwork quilt. One of the countries is first world, the other third, and they butt right up against each other. Very unsettling. One of the best things about coming back was the civilisation of things like the NHS (and I had tip-top insurance over there). It's a wonderful country in so many ways, but also messed up so badly at the same time.
Cheap bikes, though.
TheBrick - Member
There seems to be a section of American society that refers to any level of government assistance as socialist, or more frequently communism. I'm not sure if this is due to ignorance as to what socialism or communism is or if it's to scare people away from it because of the thought that anything from communism must be bad no matter what.
That pretty much sums it up. I work for an American company & deal a fair bit with my peers in the US.
The well travelled & outward looking ones envy our NHS (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.
Some others thought that if their children were born in NHS hospitals that they would be branded Communists!
There seems to be a section of American society that refers to any level of government assistance as socialist, or more frequently communism. I'm not sure if this is due to ignorance as to what socialism or communism is or if it's to scare people away from it because of the thought that anything from communism must be bad no matter what.
Yep!
I've had arguments with Americans who seem to use the words "socialist" or "communist" as the ultimate argument settler to which there is no reply. It is "socialist" therefore it is fundamentally wrong, evil, un-American and against nature/God.
Quite strange really.
It's often amusing to try to catch such people out in a swirl of hypocritical logic though. 😀
I've also noticed they seem to use "communist" to mean the opposite of "democracy" rather than the opposite of "capitalism" 😕
i hope the guy will be ok (now he's getting treatment for his illnesses).i feel very fortunate to live in the uk (where healthcare is free,well at present.)
where healthcare is free,well at present
See, it's not free though is it, you are paying for it through taxes in fact the only folks not paying for it are the Social security layabouts, but it's not free for them either, you're paying for their healthcare, some folks don't like that.
i hope the guy will be ok (now he's getting treatment for his illnesses).i feel very fortunate to live in the uk (where healthcare is free,well at present.)
It's not free. But it is a pretty good system compared to the US for sure.
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!
but it's not free for them either, you're paying for their healthcare, some folks don't like that.
Do the people who cannot afford healthcare also think it is their responsibility to pay for healthcare? that is not a troll it is a genuine question.
It's not free.
The key phrase is [i]"free at the point of use"[/i].
Junkyard, not quite sure what you mean.
Charlie - I assume you're trolling, but did you read the link above? Working man loses his job and health insurance and gets badly ill. No win there, I'm afraid 😕
do folk too poor to pay for their own healthcare still maintain it is their responsibility to pay for it and fair enough that they have no access to healthcare.
OR
Is it just people who can afford their own who support the system that you need to pay to get it?
I just wondered how universal the view was tbh.
Charlie - I assume you're trolling, but did you read the link above?
Not trolling, we were talking about how some Americans seem to think the NHS is a mugs games, i was just outlining some of their arguments.
Charlie - I assume you're trolling, but did you read the link above? Working man loses his job and health insurance and gets badly ill. No win there, I'm afraid
Or the bit kimbers posted about the poor kids at summer school - difficult to argue they deserve not to get basic healthcare. Unless you're a **** of course.
CharlieMungus - Member
Junkyard, not quite sure what you mean.
POSTED 1 MINUTE AGO # REPORT-POST
I assume he meant, do those that can't afford health insurance think someone else should be picking up the tab for them
do folk too poor to pay for their own healthcare still maintain it is their responsibility to pay for it and fair enough that they have no access to healthcare.
Is it just people who can afford their own who support the system that you need to pay to get it?
I just wondered how universal the view was tbh.
I don't know, the only folks i've tried to explore this with are those with jobs. They would probably argue that those who don't pay into the system don't get to chose who it serves
i would not word it like that BB but yes it will do as a right wing version of my question 😉
I wondered if the country was so freedom loving/personal responsibility/small state that even those who lost out thought it was right.
do folk too poor to pay for their own healthcare still maintain it is their responsibility to pay for it and fair enough that they have no access to healthcare.
As someone said above, lots of poor rightwingers were vehemently against Obama's health care plan, even though it would have given them health care which they were previously denied.
But that's because they've been brainwashed.
As someone said above, lots of poor rightwingers were vehemently against Obama's health care plan, even though it would have given them health care which they were previously denied.But that's because they've been brainwashed.
I think it's all part of the piece in right-wing libertarian terms, part of the distrust of government interference. But really if you want to discuss it in detail, the guys on the earlier link will give yo a very intelligent argument against.
CharlieMungus - MemberCharlie - I assume you're trolling, but did you read the link above?
Not trolling, we were talking about how some Americans seem to think the NHS is a mugs games, i was just outlining some of their arguments.
Sorry - I have this aggravating personality trait which means I tend to take people at face value 🙂 And actually, I actually do believe you believe what you've written. Not my job to change your mind and hopefully the recent US reforms mean that there are less people thinking the way you describe....
🙄I actually do believe you believe what you've written
It's not aggravating, just a bit dim
Thanks very much 🙂 And may I take this opportunity to apologise again for thinking the best of a stranger.
😆
Not going to make any comments either way, other than to say the American right's argument against is laid out pretty well here, and hasn't really changed since then
we were talking about how some Americans seem to think the NHS is a mugs games
And yet they are very much the mugs in this game. They spend 16% of their GDP on healthcare, we on the other hand spend 9% of our GDP on healthcare - and, we treat everyone.
If they had an NHS their healthcare bill would be considerably smaller.
I know, but i think they claim that they don't have to wait months for routine surgery
For some crazy but well supported ideas on all kinds of stuff, read here
http://www.greylabyrinth.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=13578
ernie_lynch - MemberThey spend 16% of their GDP on healthcare, we on the other hand spend 9% of our GDP on healthcare
I've just discovered that according to a US congressional report, healthcare is projected to reach 49% of GDP in the US by 2082, and 25% of GDP in just 14 years time.
Quote :
[i]Total spending on health care would rise from
16 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2007
to 25 percent in 2025, 37 percent in 2050, and
49 percent in 2082.[/i]
Point taken Charlie - the NHS is far from perfect - barely adequate sometimes (my own gran died whilst waiting for surgery which we all knew was never going to happen) - but it doesn't leave those born into the most deprived socio-economic groups high and dry.
Yes, if you're well off and can afford the premiums, you get a top quality service. If you're not, you get sweet FA - I wouldn't be comfortable with the whole "I'm alright Jack" thing, and bogger the rest of you.
ooh I bagged Junkyard on there as well
You on there CM?
I think CM is articulating a position here but not necessarily his own ...for a change 😉 ..no point attacking him for educating me/us.
I know, but i think they claim that they don't have to wait months for routine surgery
People with no healthcare have to wait forever for routine surgery. And if you want to you are perfectly free to pay for private healthcare over here so it's the best of both worlds.
I don't agree with this view at all, but even if you make the argument that jobless people are undeserving of health cover, what about their kids?
Edit: arghh as Junkyard has pointed out, CM is just trolling again. Oh sorry I mean playing Devil's Advocate, which is completely different. 😉
I'm really not trolling, the question was ho can folks think this is ok, i'm just trying to articualte their position. However, I've tried arguing with those guys, they most are really really smart and they know their stuff. I couldn't stand it! It's why i came here
People with no healthcare have to wait forever for routine surgery. 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. Now if you still think it is entirely reasonable to support those in greater need, that's an admirable intention but surely it would be better if you got to choose the beneficiaries more accurately rather than putting it into a pot and letting Cameron and his friends choose.
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.
John Rambo was his name. God bless John Rambo. God bless America.
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.
Or maybe you have to think twice before having kids.
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.
Surely that makes for the perfect healthcare system as they have to keep you alive, longer.
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
because your moral compass is broken?Because stopping humans beings dieing and suffering is a moral imperative?
I am not sure it is a charitable donation either tbh. Bit like education we all benefit from an educated society in the same way we all benefit from a healthy one.
So let’s not say this is there systems is wrong and ours is right
No lets say our is better. I like the way they dont object to their money being used to pay for the military or for the police. ie they will protect property but not people.
All govts spend your money but they [generally] do it to make your life easier oh look a road to get to work on, oh look my kids get a free education etc. i dont see this as removing rights from me I see it is an enabling me to use rights tbh.
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
That's irrelevant to this discussion, though. If you went overseas without medical insurance, you'd be liable for the cost of treatment in cash. The NHS should have charged him as he's not entitled to free at the point of use treatment (what with him being, presumably, a non-resident).
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]!