Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]


BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Jul 09 - 03:00 PM
dick greenhaus 26 Jul 09 - 02:39 PM
Ebbie 25 Jul 09 - 11:37 PM
dick greenhaus 25 Jul 09 - 10:40 PM
Peace 25 Jul 09 - 09:10 PM
Don Firth 25 Jul 09 - 09:03 PM
Peace 25 Jul 09 - 08:40 PM
McGrath of Harlow 25 Jul 09 - 08:33 PM
McGrath of Harlow 25 Jul 09 - 08:31 PM
artbrooks 25 Jul 09 - 08:05 PM
DougR 25 Jul 09 - 07:10 PM
Ebbie 25 Jul 09 - 05:59 PM
dick greenhaus 25 Jul 09 - 05:45 PM
McGrath of Harlow 25 Jul 09 - 05:45 PM
The Barden of England 25 Jul 09 - 05:43 PM
Don Firth 25 Jul 09 - 05:31 PM
McGrath of Harlow 25 Jul 09 - 01:45 PM
Ebbie 24 Jul 09 - 12:01 AM
Bill D 23 Jul 09 - 11:13 PM
artbrooks 23 Jul 09 - 10:22 PM
DougR 23 Jul 09 - 08:47 PM
dick greenhaus 23 Jul 09 - 05:56 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Jul 09 - 02:04 PM
Ebbie 23 Jul 09 - 11:53 AM
lompocan 23 Jul 09 - 11:47 AM
The Barden of England 23 Jul 09 - 06:46 AM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Jul 09 - 06:39 AM
Bill D 22 Jul 09 - 09:59 PM
Leadfingers 22 Jul 09 - 08:48 PM
Peace 22 Jul 09 - 07:56 PM
Bill D 22 Jul 09 - 07:42 PM
Peace 22 Jul 09 - 07:09 PM
McGrath of Harlow 22 Jul 09 - 07:01 PM
artbrooks 22 Jul 09 - 06:49 PM
McGrath of Harlow 22 Jul 09 - 06:43 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Jul 09 - 06:37 PM
Peace 22 Jul 09 - 06:22 PM
Peace 22 Jul 09 - 06:15 PM
Rumncoke 22 Jul 09 - 06:04 PM
McGrath of Harlow 22 Jul 09 - 05:45 PM
Stringsinger 22 Jul 09 - 02:15 PM
katlaughing 22 Jul 09 - 02:08 PM
Peace 22 Jul 09 - 11:50 AM
Peace 22 Jul 09 - 11:45 AM
dick greenhaus 22 Jul 09 - 11:36 AM
3refs 22 Jul 09 - 09:01 AM
DMcG 22 Jul 09 - 08:46 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Jul 09 - 08:02 AM
DMcG 22 Jul 09 - 06:09 AM
DMcG 22 Jul 09 - 01:44 AM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 03:00 PM

Doug,

When Brits travel to the USA for treatment, it is almost always for one of two reasons.

1). It is a new treatment, developed in the USA, which has not yet crossed the pond, and therefor is only available (at great expense) in the US.

2.) It is a highly speculative procedure which British doctors do not recommend, but the patient (understandably) is inclined to clutch at straws where death is the alternative.

I don't think you will ever find a British citizen who believes that you system is half as good as ours overall.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 26 Jul 09 - 02:39 PM

And, just to point it out, the system that DougR is currently enjoying---Medicare--is a sigle-payer nationalized healthcare system.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 11:37 PM

Thanks, Dick.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 10:40 PM

DougR- If government-run organizations are as bad as you say, and if there's a choice, why wouldn't private comapnies be able to compete?

Ebbie-"Variable focus" implants cost me $2500 each. Single focus implants would have been covered by Medicare. I chose to pay the extra because it offered me the possibility of doing away with eyeglasses, which I've been wearing for some 75 years. The point I was trying to make is that any insurance plan will have some exclusions---though not as many as you find by being uninsured. What we can hope for is that whatever plan develops, it will provide an at least acceptable level of care for everyone. IF i were 95 years old and needed a heart transplant, I'd think it unreasonable to expect a plan to provide it; if I could afford it I'd probably opt for it. Pretty simple.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 09:10 PM

I know of a few people who have, Don, but they had LOTS of money. One didn't want to wait five/six months for a new hip and the other was looking for a miracle cure for (I think) liver cancer. I don't begrudge either having the cash and going. But, that speaks to their respective wealths (is that a word?), and NOT the Canadian system of Universal Health Care.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 09:03 PM

The only people who keep telling me about Brits and Canadians coming to the United States to get better or faster medical treatment are people who a) obviously know little about the British and Canadian (and French, and Swiss, and Norwegian, and Danish, and on and on ~ including Thai) national health systems. And who favor keepint the American "system" as it is ~ a cash cow for the insurance companies to the detriment of many patients.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 08:40 PM

Doug, please define "so many"!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 08:33 PM

We've got private medical insurance here too, Doug. Of course it has to offer a good deal in order to compete with the NHS. If the American private insurance schemes aren't able to survive in competition with a government scheme, that's a sign they can't be offering a good enough deal. The good schemes would survive and get better. The rotten ones would go under, and good riddance.

I can't see why anyone would want to go to America to get quicker treatment, - if the are in a position to pay privately to get treatment more quickly, they can do it here too.
No doubt there are cases where the state-of-the-art in some particular field is better in the States (and there are cases where the same would apply in reverse).

But what would never happen here would be a case like that Don Firth just mentioned, about the lady denied cancer treatment because of the small print in her insurance. And there wouldn't be any waiting around to see a specialist either - here is a chart showing how local hospital trusts throughout England measure up to responding to a referral for suspected breast cancer.

You really do seem to have been sold some very strange notions about public and private health services in the UK, Doug.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 08:31 PM

We've got private medical insurance here too, Doug. Of course it has to offer a good deal in order to compete with the NHS. If the American private insurance schemes aren't able to survive in competition with a government scheme, that's a sign they can't be offering a good enough deal. The good schemes would survive and get better.

I can't see why anyone would want to go to America to get quicker treatment, - if the are in a position to pay privately to get treatment more quickly, they can do it here too.
No doubt there are cases where the state-of-the-art in some particular field is better in the States (and there are cases where the same would apply in reverse). The rotten ones would go under, and good riddance.

But what would never happen here would be a case like that Don Firth just mentioned, about the lady denied cancer treatment because of the small print in her insurance. And there wouldn't be any waiting around to see a specialist either - here is a chart showing how local hospital trusts throughout England measure up to responding to a referral for suspected breast cancer.

You really do seem to have been sold some very strange notions about public and private health services in the UK, Doug.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 08:05 PM

Doug, the current "government plan", which is called Federal Employees Health Benefit Program", is nothing but a set of contracts with private insurance companies. The business about a new, entirely government run, program is entirely speculation and does not appear in any of the proposed legislation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 07:10 PM

Art Brooks: Obama, in his multiple speeches, has declared, with a straight face mind you, that if you like your current plan, you can keep it. However, if the government establishes a plan of it's own, private insurance companies will not be able to compete with it. They will disappear. How can one keep his/her current plan if the plan no longer exists?

If GB and Canada have such great health plans, why do so many Brits and Canadians (lots of them) flock to the U.S. to get needed services they are told they will have to wait months to receive in their respective countries?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 05:59 PM

Dick, what are 'variable focus lenses' as compared with standard?

What did the out of pocket difference run to?

Keep in mind that Medicare never pays 100% of a covered procedure. So it can run to real money.

I will be having cataract surgery soon.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 05:45 PM

Re "rationing". I'm on Medicare (thank the Lord), and when I went in for cataract surgery last week, I was informed that, although the FDA has approved variable-focus implant lenses, Medicare wouldn't pay for them. SO..I opted to pay for the lenses and let Medicare handle the surgery costs. What's the problem?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 05:45 PM

For anybody dependent on private insurance where "pre-existing conditions" are seen as disqualifying people from getting what they nave been paying for through premiums, it seems likely that things are liable to get pretty hairy.

Improved understanding of the human genome is likely to demonstrate that an enormous range of conditions needing urgent medical help are in a sense "pre-existing conditions".

Of course that could undermine the whole racket, since what's the point of paying for insurance that isn't going to come through when needed?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 05:43 PM

That is a criminal waste of life. Come on you guys in the USA - what is so wrong with National Insurance? How can you let your politicians treat you in such a shoody way?
John Barden


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 05:31 PM

Some years back, while I was working at a radio station, I slipped on a piece of cellophane that someone had torn off a cigarette pack and dropped on the floor. Buggered my knee really well. I had to go to the doctor and, among other things, have about 20 cc. of fluid drawn off my knee, Ace bandage, stay off the leg, all of that.

My doctor submitted the bill to Blue Cross (I'm no longer with them!). Blue Cross responded, saying, "We don't cover things like that." I asked the radio station's program director if the station had insurance coverage for accidents while working. He said yes, but he also said, "Here's what you do. Go out to the Blue Cross office, make sure there are customers in their waiting room, and raise hell. Be very loud. You'll get some action."

So I did. There were a half-dozen people in the waiting room. I went to the desk and gave the letter I got to the clerk. She looked at it and said, "That's right, Mr. Firth, we don't cover accidents of this sort." "Well," said I in my loudest newscaster's voice, "if you don't cover things like this, then what the hell am I paying premiums for!??"

She shushed me up and hustled me into a small office. A moment or two later a woman came in with the letter I had handed the clerk, very apologetic, and said, "I'm awfully sorry, Mr. Firth. There's been a clerical error. Of course we cover accidents of this nature. We'll mail payment to your doctor this afternoon."

She continued to apologize for the foolish mistake as I thanked her and departed.

The following day, when I say the program director, he said, "Clerical error?" "Yep," I said. "Standard ploy," he snorted, and added something about a bunch of cheap, chiseling bastards.

I have several other stories of similar incidents, but that gives the general idea.

####

On "This American Life" this morning (this will be discounted by some on this thread because it was over my local NPR affiliate), I heard the story of a woman who was diagnosed with a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer. She was quickly scheduled for a radical double mastectomy. A few days before the operation, she was told by her health insurance company (Blue Cross) that they would not cover her because she had a pre-existing condition. When asked what the pre-condition was, they responded that she'd had a skin condition that could possibly have been pre-cancerous.

"It was teenage acne, for Chrissake!!"

They still say they won't cover her.

There's no way she can pay for it on her own. The down payment (money up front to the hospital) for the operation necessary to save her life will cost $30,000, which she simply doesn't have. And at last report, neither Blue Cross nor the hospital will cut her any slack.

They interviewed a couple of insurance company executives and they were adamant. Sorry for the woman, but—company policy! Wouldn't budge an inch!

Hell is not hot enough!!

There is something radically wrong with the American health care "system." It's all about money.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jul 09 - 01:45 PM

Of course people have the right to take out private medical insurance in Britain as well. And of course you can choose your NHS doctor too - here's an official information page explaining about that.

I think there seem to be some very peculiar ideas floating about in the USA. If stuff like that is what the "media blitz" mentioned above is saying, people should be aware they are being told lies by people with a financial interest in maintaining the status quo.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jul 09 - 12:01 AM

I check Charlie Rose every week night, Bill D. Sometimes he has a celebrity of some sort whom I'm not really interested in but usually it is meaty stuff and I watch the whole thing. I also like it when he runs old, archived shows about a certain person or issue. I learn a lot from that man and the people he brings on. A very good thing about Charlie Rose is that he does his homework.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 11:13 PM

Has anyone but me seen the Charlie Rose TV show with Denis Cortese of the Mayo clinic and White House Office of Management and Budget Director Peter R. Orszag?

First, Charlie Rose is one of the best shows anywhere to learn some things about the issues, and second...Mr Cortese and Mr. Orszag did better than anyone I have heard in clarifying it all and cutting thru the crap. I cannot possibly summarize it all here, but if you can find a clip, or are willing to read a LOT, you will have a better idea of not only what is NEEDED, but what all the politics is about....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 10:22 PM

I have yet to see anything that says they will be exempt. They will have the same option available to them that I, and everyone else, will have...keep your current plan if you want to do so.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 08:47 PM

I listened to Obama's press conference on health care last night. I thought he was pathetic. He accomplished nothing. The press corps tossed him "soft" questions and he responded with a lecture repeating the same old same old he has been saying for months.

I think his performance last night hurt rather than helped his cause.

Now we learn that even though he has "cried wolf" repeatedly if the Congress doesn't act NOW, the senate will adjourn for the summer break and there will be no vote on a Bill for the foreseeable future.

The more people learn about what is in the Bill, the less support it receives from the public.

Although Art Brooks took issue with me when I stated that the President and the Congress would be exempt from participation in the proposed health plan it is quite clear now that they would be. If it's not good enough for them, what evidence is there that it would be good for everyone else?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 05:56 PM

With all the bitching about English healthcare, I still find a number of older folkies returning to England from the States...just for the healthcare. Haven't noticed any migration the other way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 02:04 PM

"I would never vote for a Government who tried to get rid of our National Health system

Any party which said that was their intention would be unlikely to have any candidates elected. (Of course that doesn't stop stop politicians from trying to sneak through disguised policies heading in that direction after they'd been elected...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 11:53 AM

Good for Ernestine! I do hope we wake up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: lompocan
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 11:47 AM

Ernestine is back and in great form.

Lily Tomlin on Health "Insurance"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: The Barden of England
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 06:46 AM

I had my 6 month check-up with my GP yesterday. Today I had my yearly blood test, and got my medication for the next 2 months (3 different sorts of pills) and placed my request for renewal of same for 17th. September - total cost - Nothing. When in work I handed over about 25% of my gross pay in National Insurance and Income Tax, but for that I am getting all my health needs covered and when I reach 65 next year, I will get a pension too. I would never vote for a Government who tried to get rid of our National Health system, and really can't understand why some of our friends across the 'pond' see a National Health Service as something that's linked to communism or 'Liberal'. Insurance is there to make a profit plain and simple.
John Barden


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 09 - 06:39 AM

Well "the average American" managed to see through the lies about Obama and elect him, so you shouldn't write them off completely.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 09:59 PM

I'm not sure there IS an 'average' American, but they had ALL better get over the idea that calling something "socialism" is: 1)true, and 2)relevant. If it is fair & beneficial, labels are foolish.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 08:48 PM

In America there has , for FAR too long been a very vociferous group
who tell the rest of the country that ANY Socialist policy will be opening the door to Russian Style Totalitarian Communism . I fear it will be a LONG time before your 'average' American can be convinced that this is NOT the case .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 07:56 PM

When the President of the United States and the various members of Congress are in the same ER rooms as the rest of the people, THEN you will see change.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 07:42 PM

"...the various corporations with an interest in the ultimate outcome." Which is perilously close to criminal conspiracy,..."

Yes...I'd think so, but you can bet that their legal departments know where the lines are, and that no one will ever be indicted.

This is about 94.628% about **money**... various folk, from doctors to drug companies to insurance companies, have had many years to 'adjust' the system to maximize their profits, and they simply do NOT want any changes which might interfere. They make their political contributions accordingly....which means that 'most' members of Congress intend to be very careful what they vote for...and 40% are unlikely to cooperate at all! The convoluted 'explanations' of why they oppose the Obama plan are mostly just ways of avoiding saying, "I know which side my bread is buttered on."
   We all have our stories of exorbitant costs for everything from drugs to insurance premiums to ambulance rides..
(I was once charged something like $45 for 'triage' when I went to the emergency room with a cut thumb. The 'triage' consisted of my holding up my thumb with a bloody bandage and saying "I cut my thumb". I called to complain, and they said they'd 'take that charge off'. Most people don't even try...and those with insurance almost never worry about it. I could NOT remove the $90 or so charge for the 'instrument kit' which has needles, scissors, clamps...etc...made in Pakistan..which is **thrown away** afterwards, whether stuff in it is used or not. In my case, they used one needle to put 3 stitches in my thumb. No one could...or would ...tell me who actually profitted from that $90.") (Seems autoclaves are outmoded)

It seems the ONLY thing that will get real change done is lawmakers becoming more afraid of voters who WANT health care fixed than political contributors who do not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 07:09 PM

Because my question was serious, I do thank you for responding. It will have a bearing on Canadian health care down the road.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 07:01 PM

"a media blitz which is paid for by the various corporations with an interest in the ultimate outcome." Which is perilously close to criminal conspiracy, I'd suggest - at least, if that financial interest isn't openly stated as part of that "media blitz".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: artbrooks
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:49 PM

I really don't think that it's true that most, or even a significant percentage, of Americans think that the status quo - or some other system in which the insurance companies remain major players - is desirable. We...that is to say Congress...are engaged in negotiations attempting to come up with some kind of package that is minimally unacceptable to the largest number of people. That is, after all, the essence of consensus. Congress (with a few exceptions, of course) is not in the pockets of corporate interests at all. They are responsive to the wishes of their constituents, but they are subject to a media blitz which is paid for by the various corporations with an interest in the ultimate outcome. It is an unfortunate fact that some of them are easily led, and tend to believe things when they are told them over and over.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:43 PM

Where is the line where corporate lobbying becomes criminal conspiracy?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:37 PM

Obama will do what he can.

Congress will do what it must, or what it's told, depending on how far congressmen are in the pockets of corporate interests.

And of course, the public will get what the are given.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:22 PM

So, all this philosophy aside, does anyone know what Obama and Congress will do?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:15 PM

Thing to keep in mind: Pharmaceutical companies and I think insurance companies donate/invest huge sums of money speaking against Public Health Care. They really know how to brain-wash folks, especially when in many cases a light rinse would do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Rumncoke
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:04 PM

For most everyday things the British Health Service will provide adequate care when it is needed.

It is true that for some things some areas do not provide some drugs and others do - the so called post code lottery - and there are perhaps other things that could be done better, but for most of the population there will have been care and treatment from early in pregnancy to their leaving school, with no cost to their parents.

They will have been immunised against common diseases, checked to see that they are growing properly, had their vision tested, to see if they require glasses, have regular dental checks and any treatments required all as a routine. Hopefully they will then reach adulthood fit and well and ready to go to work an pay taxes.

When they retire they will once again have free health care.

In the time in between if they are prescribed a drug or other treatment they pay a standard charge for it to be dispensed at the chemist - I think it is about 8 pounds.

If they require treatment after an accident, cataract surgery, appendectomy or knee replacement - it is done.

It seems to be a very sensible system to me.

If I catch flu I can phone up to confirm the symptoms and get treatment sent round to the house rather than go out and spread the virus. When a vaccine is developed I will be invited to go and have the jab.

The administration of an insurance funded health care system must cost so much that could be used to better effect on other things.

Anne Croucher


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 05:45 PM

"It's the greedy insurance execs and so-called health care business people who are against national health care. They and their lobbyists are the problem."

In a sense that may be true, since these are the only people who might stand to lose in a change to a universal system which wasn't based on private insurance. But if they were the only people opposing such a change it wouldn't matter, since there can't be more than a relatively small number of them - a few thousands, a few tens of thousand, maybe let's imagine it moight be a million. In a country of 300 million.

The problem is this tiny minority seem to be punching way way above their weight, when it comes to influence and power.

How far is it that these vested interests have actually succeeded in convincing a good chunk of that 300 million? Or how far is it that, by one means or another, they have managed to get control of a significant number of the politicians who are supposed to represent the interests of that 300 million?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 02:15 PM

Let's face it. It's the greedy insurance execs and so-called health care business people who
are against national health care. They and their lobbyists are the problem.

NH works in almost every other civilized society in the world. It's all about greed,
fat paychecks for CEO's and concentration of power in the Insurance Lobby that is
against NH.

"Louise and Harry" was the biggest con job on the American public.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 02:08 PM

Dick, that IS brilliantly put! Thanks!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 11:50 AM

Don, it's also fairly easy to get private health insurance for injuries sustained in desert boating accidents, train derailments caused by aircraft landing on train tracks and self-inflicted damage caused by leaving the space capsule, provided yer over seventy years old.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 11:45 AM

Brilliant analogies, Dick.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 11:36 AM

The concept of "rationing" health care is as stupid as that of the fear of the word "socialized". We have , in the States, a sing;e-payer educational system. For those who want (and can afford) something else, we also have private schools. We have a nationalized Post Office. For those who want (and can afford) something else, we also have UPS, Fedex and DHL. No problem.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: 3refs
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 09:01 AM

My son was in a car accident last week and was transported to the hospital via ambulance. Thankfully, he wasn't seriously injured. I'm going in for knee replacement surgery(arthroplasty)soon and may require more back surgery after my MRI. It's not costing me a cent, other than the premium I pay on my income tax. I'd be in a financial mess if I had to pay for any of this! No, it's not perfect and sometimes there's a wait, but I'll take it as opposed to dying at the hospital door because I can't even get in!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 08:46 AM

Maybe I've not expressed myself very well, Don, but I reckon we are agreeing. What the NHS does is amazing, and long may it continue. What you expressed as In an ideal world one could say yes to everyone. In reality, where I think WE are all living, one can't. is what I intended by sometimes the NHS simply can't do things in the way those actually involved in the heartbreaking events would like.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 08:02 AM

""While I agree about giving all the treatment people *need*, the thread referred to is talking about what people *want*. In particular, they want branded drugs rather than generic. The cost implications of that are huge, and I can't help noticing the petition doesn't include the phrase "and we are willing for our taxes to be increased to cover the costs".""

DMcG, I would take issue with your statement that "what people want is branded, not generic, drugs".

In my experience, what people want is precisely the opposite. Only those too uneducated, or brainwashed by TV, to know the difference are demanding to pay four times as much for branded goods, as they can with so called "generics".

Are you one of those who buys 16 Aspro tablets, when he can buy Aspirin for a quarter the cost? Ditto, Nurofen four times more than Ibuprofen. Where topping up comes into the picture is with new drugs where, thanks to the monumental greed of the pharmaceutical companies, there is NO generic option, and the prices charged are extortionate.

NHS funds are limited, choices have to be made, and unfortunately it is difficult to justify spending thousands of pounds to, for example, give an already terminal patient an extra few months.

In an ideal world one could say yes to everyone. In reality, where I think WE are all living, one can't.

In response to your final comment, my dear fellow, we have been paying steadily higher tax to keep our NHS going since the 1940s, and we are managing quite nicely, secure in the knowledge that sudden illness, in the UK at least, is not a synonym for bankruptcy.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 06:09 AM

What you cannot do is mix private and NHS care for the same illness (so called topping up).

This, I believe will change, in the fullness of time


You are probably right, but it is a bit of a double-edged sword. Once we allow 'topping-up' it gives politicians a loophole not to increase the allocation to the NHS each year as much as they otherwise would have to. Over time, I think that could lead to a withering of the NHS. Without top-ups, the service really has to work properly as funded; with it it only has to work if 5% of the funds come from elsewhere. Then a few years later if 10% are from elsewhere ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 01:44 AM

""One thing we have to recognise is that sometimes the NHS simply can't do things in the way those actually involved in the heartbreaking events would like. In a private scheme, as long as can pay, you can have virtually anything you like, but that is something you have to give up with a NHS-like scheme.""

This is pure egregious nonsense.

The NHS ensures that those who cannot afford to pay still receive all the treatment they need.


While I agree about giving all the treatment people *need*, the thread referred to is talking about what people *want*. In particular, they want branded drugs rather than generic. The cost implications of that are huge, and I can't help noticing the petition doesn't include the phrase "and we are willing for our taxes to be increased to cover the costs."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 18 October 2:11 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.