The NHS & the United States of America

[asheep_uk]

I don't think the postal service receives any public funding.

You guys phased it out in the 1970s apparently. Took us a while longer to get round to that...

[flamedude]

The NHS has its problems but I for one am glad to know that if I ever have a serious health issue it will be sorted. Eventually. It's a nice safety net of reassurance. Of course its not the same a private medical care but the NHS is a service, not a business.

A few years ago I badly cut my head open and waited in Casualty for a cool 6 hours before they stitched me up. It was crazy but I did get fixed for free.

NHS contributions shouldn't be viewed as paying into an account, it is simply a citizen's contribution to a national scheme. It makes sense to me. All this "rich people pay more! waaah!" nonsense infuriates me.

[asheep_uk]

A few years ago I badly cut my head open and waited in Casualty for a cool 6 hours before they stitched me up. It was crazy but I did get fixed for free.

This seems to be most people's problem with the NHS. You were fine, you didn't needed to be seen to right that minute, if you had done, they would have seen you.

That's not a rant at you, but more at this stupid women in an A&E a while ago...

My mother got a nosebleed late one afternoon, nothing particularly dangerous, got a tissue and held it there. Still kept coming, so went through a few more tissues, even tried a plaster – but it just kept coming. She started to feel slightly faint, so I rang NHS Direct (a medial helpline) and they told me I needed to take her to A&E to have it 'glue-stitched' by a doctor.

Fine, I jumped in the car and drove her to A&E*– however our local A&E had a powercut and they were sending people to another hospital round the corner, not a problem – only double the number of people. A nurse saw her straight away, said that she would be seen by a doctor in 2 hours, she wasn't loosing much blood, the faintness was likely due to dehydration. She had some water and waited. Sitting next to us were some fat ugly people, often referred to as the working classes, mouthing off to every nurse and doctor that walked past about why they weren't being seen.

"Well if Mayday [the other hospital] is closed, why aren't the nurse and doctors here?"
They were, that's why it was so freaking overcrowded and I was standing up.
"Well they should have been prepared for a powercut."
They were, they have backups, but only life-threatening emergencies are being accepted that evening – normal service resumed about 4am the next day.

But then the worst bit, one of them, a particularly fat one, got up to go and find out from a nurse how long she'd have to wait. She came back to tell this little gang. "The nurse said I'd have to wait another hour before being seen, but I've already been here three, so I'm just going to go home and see my GP [family doctor] tomorrow"

If you can get yourself to A&E, you probably don't need any help and especially if you can simply decide that you can't be bothered waiting any longer and you can go and see your family doctor in the morning, you really don't ****ing need to be here, clogging up the ****ing ACCIDENT and EMERGENCIES department of a hospital dealing with double the number of patients, you fat, ugly moron.

[FlashLackey]

With what kind of deductible? If you tell me none, then you have my vote for the new Health Care Czar. You've solved the problem.

It wasn't a great deductable. I could have paid more per month for a lower one. But, when you do the math, the higher monthly cost for a lower deductable just guarantees that you will pay for an injury or illness that you might not get. So, it's more efficient in the long run, if you are young and healthy, to pay the bigger deductables as needed.

The fact remains that you are maintaining an insurance policy that protects you from bankruptcy type costs while providing the option to go to any hospital you want, with "luxuries" such as bathrooms and choosing when to see the doctor or get treatment.

...and if you look at the figures by race
uninsured black people - 18.5 - 19%
uninsured hispanics - 32 - 35%

(http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthi...ric/index.html)

...so somebody is getting the rough end of the pineapple.

What percentage of those uninsured are so by choice?

It obviously is paid for somewhere along the line. It comes out of something we have called "National Insurance", or NI - essentially a tax.

Exactly. There is no free health care.

If you earn £30,000 ($50,000) a year, you'll pay £220 ($360) a month to NI.

Your employer also contributes, paying directing to the government – about £250 a month ($410). You never see that money, it doesn't appear on your payslip, it's just something employers have to do. (In return, if you're sick, the employer gets money back from the government to help with your sick pay.)

So, thats a total of $770 per month.

For that much, here you could have a policy with no deductable. You would also have the ability to choose your hospital, doctor, time of visits and treatments. A tv and bathroom could be expected as well.

My $360 a month pays for that, but I don't have to drive around south London trying to find a hospital and I don't get landed with a $15,000 bill. And if I loose my job tomorrow, I don't actually have to pay at all.

I normally see the US as being ahead in the game, but that's pretty shocking.

I'll take LRs word for it that his story is true. But, I've never seen or heard of insurance playing any role whatsoever in where you go in an emergency. In fact, the law is that hospitals can't turn a person away in the event of an emergency.

Our top-tax rate, if you earn over £37,500 ($62,000) is 40%. Our NI is 23.8%. Our VAT is 15%, but will go back up to 17.5% in January 2010. You pay council tax for the house you live in, which is based on where your house is and how big it is. We pay road tax for our cars, which for a 1.2 litre petrol car is about £115 a year. We pay VAT and fuel tax on petrol and diesel. So yeah, we're drowning in it.

In other words, LR missed a lot of things or was getting numbers from Michael Moore again.

[FlashLackey]

I don't think the postal service receives any public funding.

That's not working out too well there: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5216012.shtml

Amazing to me that anyone wants to give these same people control of health care when they have $7 billion in losses sending envelopes. All the while, the private alternatives doing the same thing remain profitable and offer better and more innovative service.

[david petley]

here is an interesting way to compare Health care systems of 8 countries with similar economies and governments (USA, Japan, France, germany, Great Britain, Switzerland, Netherlands) - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=110997469

...seems USA spends more per person but with fewer people covered by the health care umbrella.

So, good if you are one of the covered group, but really tough if you are not.
(By FL figures, that is 3 out of 20 - 15%), and if you are hispanic, 6 out of 20 are not covered, and if black, 4 in every 20 are not covered).

davidp

<edit> I'll just wait for this link to be labelled socialist propaganda as well, shall I?

[asheep_uk]

So, thats a total of $770 per month.

For that much, here you could have a policy with no deductable. You would also have the ability to choose your hospital, doctor, time of visits and treatments. A tv and bathroom could be expected as well.

A lot of other things come out of National Insurance, such as your pension. You also receive money (and so does your employer) for unlimited sick days, which are unlimited – those are things your HMO does not cover. And do bare in mind that £200-odd that your employer pays you don't "get" otherwise, it's just a part of employing people in this country. It's not a tax on your salary, so it's of no personal effect. If companies didn't have to pay it, they sure as hell wouldn't give it to you.
I can still choose my hospital and doctor, and I do.

I'll take LRs word for it that his story is true. But, I've never seen or heard of insurance playing any role whatsoever in where you go in an emergency. In fact, the law is that hospitals can't turn a person away in the event of an emergency.

But the fact remains you have to pay for it soon as you're well enough, and if you didn't have insurance, you're ****ed.

Rather than paying $700 for a healthcare plan that sorts you out, why not pay $700 to sort the whole country out - and an 'insurance' policy that pays for your hospital, your sick pay, makes sure the company you work for isn't out of pocket and funds your pension when you retire? And you never, under any circumstances, have to get out your cheque book.

[asheep_uk]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=110997469

United Kingdom, average annual per-person spending
$2,723

United States of America, average annual per-person spending:
$6,402

It's black and white, why has it taken so long for it to even be talked about again?

[TallGuyLittleCar]

<edit> I'll just wait for this link to be labelled socialist propaganda as well, shall I?

well technically it is socialist.. but wouldn't really call it propaganda.

...seems USA spends more per person but with fewer people covered by the health care umbrella.

its the twinkies and cheeseburgers.

The problem with these comparisons is that they are not comparing individuals. They are comparing two different nationalities. for a far comparison we would want case studies of individuals. How much does a male spend through his 20s and 30s. How much for a female? how much for a child? What are they getting for what they pay? how much of what they pay is going to R&D. what are the number of international patents awarded for medical discoveries for each nation.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

That's not working out too well there: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5216012.shtml

Amazing to me that anyone wants to give these same people control of health care when they have $7 billion in losses sending envelopes. All the while, the private alternatives doing the same thing remain profitable and offer better and more innovative service.

If we judged all private companies 1 year at a time and condemned them for having a red year.. we wouldn't have very many private companies.

[david petley]

well technically it is socialist.. but wouldn't really call it propaganda.

dayum, I don't even know what NPR stands for!!

Every link for a google search I come up with seems to end up being labelled socialist here, and I can promise that I never user 'socialist views' in my search references.

...don't right wing organisations in the US collect comparitive statistics to show how well they are doing compared to other less enlightened countries?

david

[gerbick]

The labels are really confusing. Either you're liberal, conservative, socialist or just plain full of ****.

Lately. The latter is what's on our televisions. So sayeth the man that lives in this republic... I mean democracy.

[david petley]

This guy's probably a pinko as well, but he writes an interesting and relevant blog article -
http://havemacwillblog.com/2009/02/0...-care-malaise/

david

[david petley]

and I like the final paragraph here - http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.ne...#comment-69247

What is seldom mentioned is that we have an entire generation of medical refugees with people traveling to other countries for treatment and many more who will be retiring and moving to countries where the health and medical care is affordable. In the USA we have the best medical care possible for those who are rich and the mediocre or no medical care for everyone else. This week in Inglewood, California people are lining up to receive medical care and be treated in the sports arena on the basketball court. Only one person in 10 that is queuing up will get in as they are limited to 1200 patients per day. These are people who have no other option and anyone who can defend this dereliction of its duties by our government to protect and serve has a belief system that has nothing to do with reality.

[asheep_uk]

Amazing to me that anyone wants to give these same people control of health care when they have $7 billion in losses sending envelopes. All the while, the private alternatives doing the same thing remain profitable and offer better and more innovative service.

For fewer people.

FlashLackey, let's say the ‘United Health Service’ sprung up overnight. The government started taking $250 more tax off your paycheque, but you no longer need to pay anything for medical insurance. You could choose whichever UHS hospital you wanted and whenever you walked out, you would never have to take care of any bills or insurance, ever. Hypothetically, the UHS provides the same level of care that private hospitals do, using the same doctors, but you have to share a room with 3 other people.

Would you run straight out and buy private medical insurance?

[david petley]

I just saw this -

What percentage of those uninsured are so by choice?

....you tell me

...if you are trying to tell me that 1 in 5 blacks and 2 in 5 hispanics who live in the United States choose to have no health umbrella, I think you are being disengenious again (or totally naive).

david

We are talking figures here of 7.6 million black and 14 million hispanic who might not want health cover.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

...if you are trying to tell me that 1 in 5 blacks and 2 in 5 hispanics who live in the United States choose to have no health umbrella, I think you are being disengenious again (or totally naive).

I know in my very early twenties in the choice between 100 bucks a month insurance and 25 bucks a week booze money the insurance lost.

[david petley]

I know in my very early twenties in the choice between 100 bucks a month insurance and 25 bucks a week booze money the insurance lost.

the figures are too big and it is disingenious to suggest that those shocking statistics can be explained by teens and twentys wanting some booze money.

Remember that the uninsured amongst blacks and hispanics is almost double that of white folk and then tell me it is about booze and not poverty.

david

[TallGuyLittleCar]

the figures are too big and it is disingenious to suggest that those shocking statistics can be explained by teens and twentys wanting some booze money.

Remember that the uninsured amongst blacks and hispanics is almost double that of white folk and then tell me it is about booze and not poverty.

david

Oh poverty is certainly a factor. Had I been the stereotypical middle class white male I probably would have been in a 4 year school and have had mommy and daddy's insurance.

My point was that the statement that some choose has some basis as insurance is not out of reach for young adults.

Also those truly impoverished get healthcare through medicaid.

[david petley]

Also those truly impoverished get healthcare through medicaid.

Even with the Medicaid program, over 15% of the US population is without health insurance.

paragraph 1 - http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...ge-of-the.html

.....probably another socialist organisation spouting propaganda.

david