• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scotland's healthcare system doesn't suck!

Rolfe said:
OK, I was exaggerating for effect. The point is that there are some treatments so outrageously expensive for minimal benefit that only a crazed egomaniac would expect them to be covered.

<snip>

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

You are talking about Americans. Of course we are crazed egomaniacs.

What really bothers me is that people seem to think "socialized" medicine is going to be to the patient any different. All that's being proposed is a complete rework of the administration and costs of coverage, not the medical system itself. People will still be treated in order of severity, no emergency/critical treatment will be refused (which exists now in the US) etc.

The only thing changing is how that is managed. Those that argue that they don't want a government office deciding what is covered for them or not already deals with EVERY OTHER TYPE OF COVERAGE THAT DOES THE SAME THING.

Private or not, someone will make a decision on whether your treatment is covered by your insurance and it's not going to be your doctor.

ETA: And I would rather the person making that decision not be the people I have seen absolutely fail me already in the private sector.
 
Last edited:
Ducky said:
no emergency/critical treatment will be refused (which exists now in the US)....
Click to expand...


I still wonder about this. I know that's the theory, but does it always work that way? Do hospitals always throw everything they've got at the critical emergency (I'm thinking about people being flown 1,000 miles to get the treatment they need, for example), even if they know there isn't a snowball's chance in hell they'll ever see a penny of the cost?

I'm remembering the child in Sicko, acutely ill with meningitis, who was taken to the nearest hospital. It transpired that the mother's insurance would not pay out for that particular hospital, and the insurers demanded that the child be taken to another hospital some distance away. The mother tried to get the first hospital to treat the girl, but without success. According to her version of the story, they were concerned that they wouldn't get paid if the insurance company denied cover for that hospital. The little girl died soon after arriving at the "right" hospital.

Now I've seen a lot of alleged universal healthcare stories that were either blatant lies, or represented things that simply Should Not Have Happened and one is astonished that they happened even once. However, nobody has ever explained that one away in those terms. How does that one square with "no emergency/critical treatment will be refused"?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
I still wonder about this. I know that's the theory, but does it always work that way? Do hospitals always throw everything they've got at the critical emergency (I'm thinking about people being flown 1,000 miles to get the treatment they need, for example), even if they know there isn't a snowball's chance in hell they'll ever see a penny of the cost?

I'm remembering the child in Sicko, acutely ill with meningitis, who was taken to the nearest hospital. It transpired that the mother's insurance would not pay out for that particular hospital, and the insurers demanded that the child be taken to another hospital some distance away. The mother tried to get the first hospital to treat the girl, but without success. According to her version of the story, they were concerned that they wouldn't get paid if the insurance company denied cover for that hospital. The little girl died soon after arriving at the "right" hospital.

Now I've seen a lot of alleged universal healthcare stories that were either blatant lies, or represented things that simply Should Not Have Happened and one is astonished that they happened even once. However, nobody has ever explained that one away in those terms. How does that one square with "no emergency/critical treatment will be refused"?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

If true then the hospital would be violating the law. It might well have happened, but at face value it would be illegal.
 
Well that may well be right. I think any human-made system will have errors and so you can probably point to things that go wrong no matter what health care system you are considering. Just as those errors are misused in the ways this thread is designed to counter when UHC is being attacked:so it may well be that the situation in America is not as black as it is painted.

It is hard to remember that though, because much of what I know about it comes from this board and I have been deeply shocked by what I have heard here. One thing that is odd is that those who are most vocal in opposition to UHC on other threads have not come to this one to answer the factual questions put.

The impression is that this is driven by ideology: but it is really hard to understand that people would rather die or see their family and friends suffer in the name of ideology. I guess I would have to call that a principled stance. I would admire it if it was not imposed on those who disagree, I suppose.
 
If the US does go to a national health care system what way do people think it will be best implemented? State by state? By region? For state by state it is already proving to be a problem in Massachusetts (spending has doubled in only two years of operation) and Hawaii (which just closed its universal child health care program after seven months).
 
Policenaut said:
If the US does go to a national health care system what way do people think it will be best implemented? State by state? By region? For state by state it is already proving to be a problem in Massachusetts (spending has doubled in only two years of operation) and Hawaii (which just closed its universal child health care program after seven months).
Click to expand...

Univeral care by itself will not lower costs. At least not if done in the way that current suggestions are.

The goal really is to use this as a place to start getting a hand on medical expenses. BUt that will take lots of regulation that is unpopular with those who have the money to spend in washington. Look at the medicare perscription drug coverage that was written in large part by the pharmacutical industry.
 
Rolfe said:
I still wonder about this. I know that's the theory, but does it always work that way? Do hospitals always throw everything they've got at the critical emergency (I'm thinking about people being flown 1,000 miles to get the treatment they need, for example), even if they know there isn't a snowball's chance in hell they'll ever see a penny of the cost?

I'm remembering the child in Sicko, acutely ill with meningitis, who was taken to the nearest hospital. It transpired that the mother's insurance would not pay out for that particular hospital, and the insurers demanded that the child be taken to another hospital some distance away. The mother tried to get the first hospital to treat the girl, but without success. According to her version of the story, they were concerned that they wouldn't get paid if the insurance company denied cover for that hospital. The little girl died soon after arriving at the "right" hospital.

Now I've seen a lot of alleged universal healthcare stories that were either blatant lies, or represented things that simply Should Not Have Happened and one is astonished that they happened even once. However, nobody has ever explained that one away in those terms. How does that one square with "no emergency/critical treatment will be refused"?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Wasn´t there a case some time ago (early this year, I think) where a woman spent 24 hours in a hospital waiting room, most of that collapsed and unconscious, before she died from lack of treatment?
 
Chaos said:
Wasn´t there a case some time ago (early this year, I think) where a woman spent 24 hours in a hospital waiting room, most of that collapsed and unconscious, before she died from lack of treatment?
Click to expand...


I've heard one or two stories like that. However, I entirely accept the explanation. Which was that the patient had simply got themselves into the A&E waiting room and sat down. Nobody was alerted to their presence, nobody booked him or her in.

This was in a busy department which had a regular problem with local down-and-outs simply parking themselves in the waiting room for the free warmth and shelter. In the case (or cases) in point, the patient was mistaken for one of these until someone finally investigated.

No, of course it shouldn't happen. But I can see how it might. Staff are busy with the emergencies they know about. They only half-register a figure slumped on a bench in the corner, taking it for a wino, or possibly thinking that someone else is attending to this. Then finally someone realises it's been there rather a long time....

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a "To get there I wouldn't start from here" argument, often interpreted as "The USA has a uniquely busted political system that cannot be fixed".

So unless you want it to sound like that, what's the next step?
 
Francesca R said:
Sounds like a "To get there I wouldn't start from here" argument, often interpreted as "The USA has a uniquely busted political system that cannot be fixed".

So unless you want it to sound like that, what's the next step?
Click to expand...

It is fairly much that we have a broken political system though. Insurance and drug companies have shown that they can buy the legislation or block the legislation that they want. I see no reason to expect that to change.
 
Let's face it, and hope Obama will too, getting from where the USA is to anywhere sane is going to be difficult. If the system currently pays out twice what it actually needs to to get the results it's achieving, then 50% of the money is going in unproductive directions. Some people are trousering a lot of cash, which is going to have to be redirected elsewhere if anything constructive is going to be done. They are not going to be very happy with this redirection. And some of these people have enough of said cash already trousered to buy them a great deal of influence.

OK, that's simplistic, but it's the nub of the problem in that respect.

Rolfe.
 
Lothian said:
Perhaps if the Americans altered the representative’s allowances system and allowed the flipping of second homes they wouldn’t be so reliant on the insurance and healthcare bribes.
Click to expand...

See how that worked for Italy where they elected one of the richest men in the country. He is so rich he has to be honnest right?
 
Rolfe said:
Let's face it, and hope Obama will too
Click to expand...
According to the prognosis ponderingturtle appears to be alluding to, Obama won't face it, because the blockage to reform is one of executives and legislatures being bought off by coalitions that want to protect the status quo contrary to the public interest. (Isn't that why Hillary Clinton's efforts were skewered?)
 
ponderingturtle said:
See how that worked for Italy where they elected one of the richest men in the country. He is so rich he has to be honnest right?
Click to expand...

And still Italy, not known for it's streamlined and incorruptible administration have a healthcare system that works.
What does that say about american politics?
 
Well it wasn't exactly easy to set up the NHS in the UK either. If the political will is there it must be possible
 
Francesca R said:
According to the prognosis ponderingturtle appears to be alluding to, Obama won't face it, because the blockage to reform is one of executives and legislatures being bought off by coalitions that want to protect the status quo contrary to the public interest. (Isn't that why Hillary Clinton's efforts were skewered?)
Click to expand...


Just thinking here. Hillary's original efforts happened mid-1990s, right? The Internet wasn't a tenth of what it is now, back then. More importantly, back then the Internet was more of a noticeboard than a conversation. You could put up a page or a web site expressing your ideas or opinions, but you couldn't really discuss them publicly with anyone and everyone. You just had to hope that people came by and read your little piece.

Now things have moved on. Lots of people are reading stuff, and discussing stuff, that simply wouldn't have come their way 10 or 15 years ago. I've noticed a number of US posters here say that they've changed their mind since discussing healthcare issues on the internet, especially when they realise how satisfied most people living with universal healthcare are with their system. Some of these people even emerge from cyberspace and start discussing what they've learned with real people.

I have no idea if this effect is big enough to shift opinion significantly, but it's certainly something that wasn't an issue last time.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom