why not?...although it's not as catchy as Obama's renaming of terrorism as "MAN CAUSED DISASTERS"
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Paul Krugman endorses Death Panels
- Thread starter applecorped
- Start date
why not?...although it's not as catchy as Obama's renaming of terrorism as "MAN CAUSED DISASTERS"
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
No worries. We're cool. I did almost reply to you though, but for once I decided to read the whole thread first
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
Anyone want to tell us Brits what freedom we lose?
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
I think you lose the freedom to chose your own private insurance carrier so they can deny payment of the healthcare you need.
So, in effect, you lose the freedom to attempt to pay for your own critical healthcare, and lose everything you own as you go bankrupt.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
You've lost the right to pay $400/month to be denied health care. This is, apparently, a freedom some Americans cannot live without.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
Nope, we can get private coverage too. It's just that if it denies us something we can always get it on the NHS instead.
Given that you aren't American I fail to see how you have anything left to lose at all.
stokes234
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,294
I'm trying to debate in a separate forum full of republicans, and this thread seems to have an excess of UHC proponents. Someone has just told me that in america, hospitals legally cannot deny you any form of care, and so technically they already do have universal healthcare in america, and anyone who dies because they didn't have insurance is just stupid. Is this true? It strikes me as particularly unlikely that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act is genuinely stretched to cover anything, but its one of those claims that I don't have any sources on hand to solidly refute.
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
I'm sure others will have references and such, but the way it works is this: If you need Health Care, you can go to your emergency room, and they will give you the bare minimum of what you need to still be breathing as you leave. If you have cancer, you do not get full cancer treatments, for example.
The hospital may also very well try to bill your for its services, which can be very very expensive. The hospital may also just write off the care you received, this has the added bonus of driving up costs.
A UHC style of plan means that everyone has the care they need. People may be more likely to visit their doctor for preventative care. Hospitals, and doctors will always be paid for their services and care.
I was going to jump in but Shalamar beat me to it. It is actually one of the problems--and not one of the pluses--with healthcare in the US.
The indigent (and those who pass themselves off as indigent) sometimes use emergency rooms as primary care; hospitals have to write off much of that care as a loss.
I can't quote the legislation that requires them to do this, but I have worked in enough hospitals to know that they all take it seriously.
The indigent (and those who pass themselves off as indigent) sometimes use emergency rooms as primary care; hospitals have to write off much of that care as a loss.
I can't quote the legislation that requires them to do this, but I have worked in enough hospitals to know that they all take it seriously.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
TraneWreck
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,929
Aha! Turnabout is fair play.
We really turned up the sarcasm meter on this thread.
I'm a Merkin. The only sarcasm you'll see from me will be coming from the barrel of my six-shooter.
Sarcasm actually. I just don't use smilies. Or excel at sarcasm.
Rolfe
Adult human female
No, we can still do that (the first bit I mean). We have a choice of private health insurance providers in Britain, offering pretty modest rates. It's worth it if you want seen sooner for an elective procedure, or to have your procedure in a swanky private hospital with single rooms and prettier nurses and none of the hoi polloi cluttering the place up.
We also have the freedom to pay out of our own pocket if we want to - my mother did that to avoid a wait of over a year for a cataract operation. (The wait was due to some exceptional problem in the NHS hospital.)
But if our insurance doesn't cover what we need done and we don't want to pay for it ourselves (even if we can!), the NHS will still do it for us. So right enough, I don't see any way we could go bankrupt over medical costs, even if we wanted to.
Someone said we lose choice of consultant. Not so. We can choose any hospital or consultant within reason (distance, I mean). My mother's doctor recently offered to refer her to a haematology consultant in Edinburgh because that was more convenient for me to get her to, as opposed to the usual contact in Melrose. My mother herself requested a change of ophthalmology consultant, partly because she wanted to see the senior man, and partly because it meant a clinic at a more convenient hospital. She just asked the secretary verbally, and was told fine, the new appointment schedule will be sent to you. And it was so.
I myself managed to show up at three different hospitals with the same injured foot (long story). Not only did each hospital happily see me on demand, they were all able to access the original x-rays taken in the first hospital through the central computer system.
Seems to me there's a lot of strawmanning going on in this argument. People decide that if the USA were to introduce universal healthcare, then they'd go about it in some insanely stupid and counter-productive way. Then that fantasy-bogeyman gets attacked as if that's how universal healthcare would inevitably be.
It just ain't so, guys.
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
TANSTAAFL.
You know, that's not true, not even literally, and certainly not when comparing the US healthcare system to the deal people get in other countries.
In the USA, taxpayers shell out a certain amount of money to pay for publicly-funded healthcare that in most cases they themselves are barred from accessing. They thus have to shell out again, to fund private insurance to cover themselves.
In Britain, taxpayers shell out a little bit less in taxes to fund the entire NHS, which they themselves have full access to. Heart transplants and all.
What's not to like?
Rolfe.
You know, that's not true, not even literally, and certainly not when comparing the US healthcare system to the deal people get in other countries.
In the USA, taxpayers shell out a certain amount of money to pay for publicly-funded healthcare that in most cases they themselves are barred from accessing. They thus have to shell out again, to fund private insurance to cover themselves.
In Britain, taxpayers shell out a little bit less in taxes to fund the entire NHS, which they themselves have full access to. Heart transplants and all.
What's not to like?
Rolfe.
Top of my head thoughts here, with no internal scrutiny going on, but it increasingly appears to me that when the discussion is one of freedoms or rights it is comparing your NHS with a non-existent completely privatized health system in the US. I would guess it ties into the mantra of the free market champions who seem blinded to the fact that we've never had a truly free market.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
TANSTAAFM (There ain't no such thing as a free market.)
Rolfe
Adult human female
I don't know. A lot of the time it seems to me that those opposing universal healthcare are building their own bogeyman to attack. For example, saying that introduction of universal healthcare would prevent patients choosing which consultant they see. Why should that be a consequence? It certainly isn't the situation with the NHS - you can choose your own consultant, though if you demand to see the Top Man when you have a boring condition any competent registrar could sort out, be prepared to wait, that's all.
Rolfe.
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,745
Question for people in the UK. Can you retroactively buy private health insurance? Example, can you buy private insurance after you're diagnosed for a procedure that isn't covered by your UHC?
The waiting period that magically disappeared is for consultation purposes only; don't you still have to wait for the procedure?
Can you please further explain how the state healthcare sector provides subsidies for the private insurance and is this in the US or your market?
We've already had a current, experienced healthcare worker say that procedures have been denied by both Medicare and private insurance. I think that we can agree that it doesn't matter if the health insurance company denies your request or the single-payer gov agency denies your request.
I find it quite strange that when an insurance company denies a procedure they are evil rotten capitalist who are only after your money, but when a single-payer gov agency does this it's to control cost and distribute healthcare fairly and equally. Maybe a little bit of a double standard?
How did health insurance ever get tied to employment?
I'll play the game. My PHC is free-at-point of use too. After all, I get the bill in the mail a few weeks later. And after my deductible is paid my medial bill is paid in full.
Who doesn't accept it? I wonder if there has ever been an honest attempt at 100% private education. I'm sorry I haven't read the recent thread "Education in America is a Socialistic monopoly."
I'm unsure how much it would cost to have access to a medical consultant in the US. I'm not aware of anybody providing this service. At 27 years old, I have very limited personal experience with the healthcare industry.
The waiting period that magically disappeared is for consultation purposes only; don't you still have to wait for the procedure?
Can you please further explain how the state healthcare sector provides subsidies for the private insurance and is this in the US or your market?
I understand that. This is an issue that needs to be solved. What's important is determining why the US spends so much more in health care and the reason is not, because the US is not single-payer.
How is only having one option more "freedom?" Remember it's call single-payer, which by the very definition of single means no choice and you are required by law to pay for this system, which yet again by the very definition of require means no choice.
UHC and PHC is similar in this regard.
Under UHC, NICE decides what care you are eligible for. Under PHC, various insurance companies with different policies decide what care you are eligible for.
We've already had a current, experienced healthcare worker say that procedures have been denied by both Medicare and private insurance. I think that we can agree that it doesn't matter if the health insurance company denies your request or the single-payer gov agency denies your request.
I find it quite strange that when an insurance company denies a procedure they are evil rotten capitalist who are only after your money, but when a single-payer gov agency does this it's to control cost and distribute healthcare fairly and equally. Maybe a little bit of a double standard?
How did health insurance ever get tied to employment?
I'll play the game. My PHC is free-at-point of use too. After all, I get the bill in the mail a few weeks later. And after my deductible is paid my medial bill is paid in full.
Are there no examples of this happening in countries with single-payer? I'm the first to admit that the US's system needs to be changed, but that doesn't mean that the only solution is a single-payer system.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
What procedure would that be? The only things not covered are certain experimental and/or non effective drugs and such. Need a heart transplant? You got it so long as we have some available for transplant. Need a new kidney? Sure thing, see above. Need a quadruple bypass? Go get one. Need chemotherapy? Step right on up and so on and so on. Nothing that will save your life isn't covered.
No, but it's because of the way your system is run. I'll let those with more know-how get into the details with you, but basically your system is mismanaged, and the insurance companies don't give a toss about you.
Really? This again? You are forced to pay for Medicaid but you (most likely) don't receive the care for it. We on the other hand do get our NHS coverage. We ALL get it. No matter who you are or what you need. Seriously. We can also buy private insurance if we want to but we don't need to because there is nothing that isn't covered by the NHS.
NO. That is simply not true.
NICE decides what treatments will be available on the NHS. They don't look at individual cases. Ever. If you need something done, the NHS will do it for you, no ifs buts or maybes. The only things rejected are things that are not proven to be of enough value. Admittedly this should include homeopathy and doesn't, but otherwise you can't be refused treatment. It does not happen.
Which is NOT what happens here. When I go in for a heart operation the doctors and NICE don't assess what treatment I will get, I will get the effective treatment that I need. That's it.
Not a double standard because it isn't the same thing. Seriously. Not even close. If we both needed chemotherapy for cancer and went into our hospitals, your insurance provider might refuse to pay for it or say you don't need it. I will just get it.
Great. I don't have to pay a penny.
Examples of what? We don't HAVE deductibles. We don't GET a bill in the post. It really genuinely doesn't ever work like that.