Health Care

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Health Care
Jimme 10/23/2007 2:51:42 AM

I was reading the "required defense spending" thread and I read some of the figures for the UK's health Care spending and I have to tell you it seams a bit excessive. At $180 Billion for a population of 60 million, that comes to around $3,000 per person. Or around the same exact price as private health insurance cost for an Individual. This really caught my attention because as a small business owner who has always believed in nothing but the best health care coverage for my employees(I even splurge for full dental) I was recently shopping around for a new plan. I noticed there are great deals with good coverage to be had if you only look and bargain a little. With this in mind I was thinking might not UK's interest be better served if it switched to a private health care system and just paid the private insurance premiums for all but the rich? I think you could save at least 30% Since a family can be grouped together for around $8,000 instead of $3k per person. Even a family of 3 would save $1,000 and a family of 5 $7k. Now I really don't know exactly how your system works but I have heard of long wait times for basic care and even longer for dental. Maybe a move to privatization would move things to more of a US type system where I can basically see my doctor tomorrow if I really had to, or by the end of the week if it could wait. So what do you guys think, now I may be ignorant and might have things all wrong so please excuse me if that is the case. I would be interested to know exactly how you Health Care system does work in any case. Do you have PCPs, if not who administers your primary care. If you wanted to see your doctor or a doctor, what would it involve to schedule an appointment. How is dental care handled. How are prescriptions handled?

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

bob the brit 10/30/2007 6:58:36 PM

People move to the UK for the medical treatment. I know of Americans that have been here for years getting free treatment for longterm conditions. If you are allowed into the country you are allowed free treatment.

Really? That's great. One day, if I'm broke and desperate and sick I might take you up on the offer. Fortunately, I am a specialist in the maintenance and restoration of historic buildings so I can eventually work off at least part of the freebie.

I can teach you guys to use sectional scaffolding. Everything you folks set up is some sort of arranged on the spot hodge podge.

SGTObvious

it's a deal, but we'll teach you how to concrete and with proper reinforcing methods

Quote Reply

Jimme Bob the Brit 10/31/2007 2:17:40 AM

To answer your question.

US government has a program called Medicaid, which pays for just such instances. It also provides funding for health care for the poor. Under US law you must be in stable condition to be released from a hospital. Hospital will try and bill you though, those bastards, they are always trying to double dip.

Quote Reply

Jimme 10/31/2007 2:29:48 AM

May I ask Jimme, what battle is it you?re trying to fight here? I am not about to get bogged down in this discussion but I am merely wondering since your comparing it to the US model.

If you?re arguing against the concept universal health care (with no means testing at demand) then you are fighting a losing struggle. It is a battle that has been all but won in the UK and the wider western world for the last 50 years (with the notable exception being the US and South Africa), even accursed Thatcher knew not to meddle with it.

However if you are arguing that Britain should selectively adopt managed care and managed competition elements, in order to remedy the symptoms of a calcified health care system without sacrificing underlying principles of its social welfare state, like the German or Swedish models, then that is a point of view that can be argued with a great deal of merit.

Personally I?m a happy bunny now that the Scottish parliament recently announced scrapping the Private Finance initiative for public building projects and replace it with Scottish PublicService Trusts. These trusts would oversee investment in the publicsector, raise funds through bond issues, and hold assets in trustduring the contract period after which the buildings would revertto publicownership, all which greatly affects the health service.

I'm advocating a system with US quality health care and UKs guaranteed coverage. Though people like to think US healthcare is behind the rest of the modern world, it really couldn't be further from the truth. How its financed is the only flaw in the system. The care it self is the best in the world period. Thats why survival rates for people with major conditions are double that or the rest of the Western world. Example, survival rate for people with prostate cancer are 88% in US , 46% in UK. So really who cares if its free if you are 64% likely to die. With a Hybrid system UK would get US quality care for less then it is currently paying now into its NHS, and thats including dental coverage.

Quote Reply

bob the brit 10/31/2007 10:07:12 AM

thanks for the answer, i had visions of financially challenged persons getting gyped after recieving treatment, but thank god there is something in place.

i have always thought a double system would be practical, having both a public health service and private (thus if you don't want to wait for example, no worries, head to the private and pay the bills) unfortunately i can see a few problems with this, including the possibility of doctors and persons trained in the medical fields opting for private work only, thus robbing the public system of valuable people. then again i may be wrong

Quote Reply

eldnah 10/31/2007 1:16:02 PM

Governments and bureaucracies love to expand and the biggest target in the US is the 7% of the economy that is the health sector. I read with great interest the frequent articles in the Telegraph and London Times of the problems with the British NHS and appreciate the advantages of the US system that the WHO ranks 37th in the World, being penalized for not having a government universal health care system and a someone shorter life expectancy that is due to social conditions, auto accidents, violence etc and not medical care. Burlusconi, the president of WHO's second rank country, Italy, recently came here for his pacemaker. Why, because the US is first in outcomes and disease survival longevity.

The "uninsured" of 47 million that is often quoted is somewhat specious. 12 million of those are illegal aliens. 8 million of the rest earn between $50,000 and 75,000 a year and another 9 million over $75,000 a year and choose not to purchase health insurance. My wife who works for a niche softwear company negotiated a higher salary by opting out of the company's health care plan as she is covered under mine. Her company lists her as uninsured. My daughter and her husband have their own small law firm and are "uninsured" but for about fifteen years had invested the premiums they would have paid in a separte account that has grown substantially and no longer requires contributions. Another 2 to 3 million uninsured are eligible for various free government programs but didn't apply, among the rest 45% are between insurances for up to 4 months.

The uninsured are given medical care and often for free in the ERs, hospitals and their clinics and it's cost factored into the hospitals' budget. Unfortunately in some of the southern border areas this has caused considerable financial hardship for many hospitals because of the large number of illegals needing care but that's not a problem with the US medical system. The US medical system is not perfect but turning it over to a bureaucratic national heath system is not the answer.

Of course if you believe all necessities in life should be free for everyone my information is irrelevant. Funny though, food is more basic than medical care yet no one seems to be arguing for free food for all nor free shelter nor free clothing. Perhaps those are some of Hillary's great ideas for America that even she recently notes we can't afford. Perhaps the US's motto should be "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Don't worry though, the very rich and the politically powerful will always have the very best.

Quote Reply

Ehran 10/31/2007 3:15:40 PM

bob american hospitals have discovered a new trick about indigents etc getting through their doors. the primary route for such folks to get into a hospital where they can consume hospital resources without paying for them is through the emergency rooms. it's surprising how many hospitals particularly in california are closing down their emergency rooms and cutting off the flow of freeloaders that way. read an article a while back that the lack of emergency rooms was getting to be a concern in california and they were considering making emergency rooms mandatory at hospitals.

also from california one hospital got in trouble for dumping indigents on the streets back in "their" part of town well before they should have been released from a hospital.

Quote Reply

eldnah 10/31/2007 3:50:09 PM

A number of California, Arizona and New Mexico hospitals have closed their ER's because they had become overwhelmed by illegal aliens, the largest block of "Uninsured" in the US, who have crossed the southern border and do not pay nor are eligible for US Government programs for the poor or elderly, vide supra. Perhaps the US should offer free health care for anyone in world who can manage to get here. Is that the Canadian way, free care for anyone in the world who can sneak into that country? BTW can anyone explain the large number of Canadian patients choosing to pay for medical care in the US?

Quote Reply

bob the brit 10/31/2007 7:18:46 PM

...not in my bloody experiences (not that i'm the spokesman for canada though) my son was knocked out during a sports game at his high school, he was lights out for a while apparently so they got him to the local hospital (emerge' i guess). but they didn't let him in because he didn't have a health card (bear in mind too this is in ontario, not a reflection of all of canada). so i got a call at work and proceeded to the hospital (about an hour or so away), i arrive and he still wasn't in. argument ensued, i ended up coughing up cash before he was allowed in. now a doctor had aparently come to see him while the BS went on and said he wasn't critical (understandably) but i almost went mental over the whole ordeal.

Quote Reply

Ehran 10/31/2007 8:57:44 PM

Thats why survival rates for people with major conditions are double that or the rest of the Western world. Example, survival rate for people with prostate cancer are 88% in US , 46% in UK.

ht*tp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/30/AR2007103002159.html?wpisrc=newsletter

explains where those faulty percentages come from. they are also inaccurate and unsupported by any cites in the article guiliani got them from. his spokesman has sidestepped away from them as well.

Quote Reply

eldnah 10/31/2007 10:13:58 PM

Please...... the WaPo article stated that Giuliani said the survival rate for prostate cancer in the US was 82% vs 44% in England and then the left wing WaPo called him a "Pinocchio" stating that his figures were out of date. The WaPo does not give the figures for when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer but then states the current figures, US survival is now 98% while it's 74% in England. Those figures do not refute my statements regarding outcomes but supports them. Which country would you like to live in if your prostate turns cancerous?

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT