The NHS & the United States of America

[FlashLackey]

Dan Hannan is a ****ing nobody moron who was paid a **** load of money by your insurance companies to slag off a system that, yes, has its faults, but provides for every man, women and child in Britain.

At a lower quality than they could receive in the US.

He's not even a real MP, he's an MEP – Member of European Parliament. He has no power, say or vote on any NHS matters.

I judge peoples ideas by their merit, not by the persons title or function. Besides, the point is that LR was mistaken in claiming that conservatives are for socialized health care. By definition, it's the opposite of a conservative solution. Not that someone who calls themselves a conservative can't make an exception for something.

FlashLackey, consider this: I'm a single father with three kids. Their mother died of cancer. She was the income earner for the household and had insurance for us. Now I've got a part-time job, as well as looking after the kids, but it doesn't come with insurance, so I'm having to pay for it myself, which I can barely afford for the whole family. I can't afford broadband or to take the kids on holiday. I can only just put food on the table after the I pay the insurance. I have a liver disease, which my insurance company doesn't cover because it's "pre-existing".

In a year's time I will need an operation to remove my liver.

In this circumstance, what would happen to me in the US today? What would you propose?

I believe that you would qualify for Medicaid and you would receive assistance.

Can you not agree that, in that circumstance, a national health service is better for his family?

The best service for his family would be one that charges every tax payer and gives all the revenue directly to him so that he could then be a multi-billionaire. At issue is not what is best for a single circumstance or person. Rather, what serves the society at large, best? A system that is convenient for one situation isn't much good if over-all, more people in that society die due to lower quality of care. The sum result is the society lost more citizens that it didn't have to.

If one thinks that "Competition fixes all" in regards to health insurance they are sadly mistaken. When Obama during the election spoke of the turmoils his mother went thru with her health care provider trying to get them to own up to their responsibilities it struck a nerve with me.

We don't currently have normal competition in the health insurance industry. You can't even buy insurance from across state lines, allowing many companies to establish local monopolies. Wouldn't it make sense to pit them against each other more so that they are forced to hold the lowest margins they can afford and the best terms in order not to lose market share to their competitors?

The changes proposed by Obama, et al, would not have been affected my father's outcome - I'm not that stupid either. However, it pains me that people have the audacity to think that people actually want to be uncovered - when a lot have no choice to do so. It's either pay for a light bill, or pay the health bill... or pay for groceries... or pay for health coverage. I've seen that.

Some do have no choice, true. But, it's simply a matter of fact that a lot of the uninsured choose not to be covered. It's not at the expense of light bills or groceries but ipods and sneakers.

Anyway, argue on. I'm amazed at the argument against a change than the reasons why a change might be needed.

What's wrong with a change that addresses the things you are concerned about that isn't Obama's solution?

What I can't get my head around is why are so many people so passionate about lining the pockets of the insurance companies?

Who is so passionate about that?

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...861919,00.html
<THIS LINK DOES NOT WORK - but is the heading of the first paragraph in the second link...

http://www.health-tourism.com/medica.../usa-research/

...Not statistics per se, but reporting based on statistics.

That's not reporting based on statistics. That's hearsay. We don't know who these experts are, what their methodology was or if they even had one at all.

It's interesting to note this excerpt under "Reasons Why American Patients are Traveling Abroad for Medical Treatments":

Patients from the US are provided with brand new facilities and equipment due to fierce competition among hospitals and global medical tourism centers. Though price is an important factor, there are other benefits of medical tourism.

This sounds like it supports my position that increased competition increases quality facilities and equipment for lower prices.

And this article describes the opposite trend while specifying a source:

But while the trend continues, and raises important questions about why so many Americans can't afford health care at home, a new report points out that the largest segment of medical travelers are headed stateside. And, experts say, they're also growing in numbers.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/25/hea...tsourcing.html

FL tried to make it seem that the article he quoted earlier was saying that people are flocking TO the US when it actually said the opposite.

Interesting. I don't recall posting a link regarding that point in the past. But, I have now. I suppose you will also think that McKinsey & Co. are part of the vast right-wing conspiracy as well.

How is this really any different?

It's quite a bit different than Obama's solution. Though, I will say that I am not a fan of it either, compared to other more straight-forward plans.