Socailized Medicine?
- Thread starter Ed
- Start date
-
- Tags
- health care
Bjorn
Off Topic
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,968
Or life insurance, or disability insurance. Both of which demands information about your health.
Godmode
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 490
I'm in the UK and have health insurance. Basically the way mine works is if there's a very long delay in treatment for the NHS (which there sometimes is) then I am covered to go get private treatment. It's a nice combination to have. I wouldn't give up the NHS for anything. The US really needs to adopt something similar, there is no excuse for people not getting basic health care.
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
Yeah, but how's the dental plan?
Godmode
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 490
Yeah, but how's the dental plan?
I pay for my own dental work, but it's probably more affordable then in the states.
Life insurance/assurance, insurance for protection for mortgages and so on.
Of course everyone is perfectly entitled to take out additional medical insurance if they like (which does not impact on their right to NHS treatment - something that most private medical companies in the UK quite cynically exploit). I'd be surprised if most people call that "medical insurance" in everyday conversation -in the UK it's rare that when we talk about "Insurance companies" we are talking about medical insurance.
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,363
I heard if you were worth five million pounds, or had a salaray that large, you were exempt from NHS. But what if you're not, can you exempt yourself? Could a programmer with a decent salary buy private health insurance if they could afford it (or heck just pay as they went) without being worth that much?
My big beef with government provided services like this is the lack of freedom of choice you have -- if the service is so good, I'd participate voluntarily. If it's not so good, angry politicians have no business demanding I participate. Hence there is no logical reason whatsoever to mandate people join it. (Political, yes. Prevent people from getting better service which makes government service look bad which hurts chances of re-election. Prevent people from avoiding paying for the government's service even if they don't want it, which means less money, which makes it look worse, which prevents re-election.)
I have heard (during Hilliary's foray into universal health care) that the logic is that you need full membership for it to work.
Nope everyone is entitled to the full resources of the NHS.
Nope - all income earners who pay tax contribute.
Of course there are logical reasons; I suspect what you mean is that you disagree with the axiom that the logical reasons start from. The axiom in a country like the UK is that "everyone has a right to health care irrespective of their ability to pay". Following that axiom there are many logical arguments to say that everyone who can should contribute - as one example it spreads the cost of ensuring that right among a larger number of people.
Most people seem to accept this type of starting premise and then logical reasoning for many government provided services - such as a country's military defence.
The result of adopting that axiom and the payment method in the UK is a system that actually costs less (per head of population) to provide and provides more cover (e.g. range of treatments) to more people then say the USA system, although costs more then the Canadian system.
Also in the UK if you wish to pay more then you are quite free to do so and we have a healthy private medical sector (albeit they are indirectly subsidised by the NHS).
Godmode
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 490
You seem to be a bit confused about the way NHS works. Everyone has the RIGHT to use the NHS, but nobody is forced to. There are lots of private doctors, clinics, and hospitals, and anyone willing to pay (with or without insurance) can use them. To be clear, the NHS is NOT insurance. I do believe that most private doctors (if not all) put in a certain amount of time providing NHS care as well.
I don't understand why some Americans find the idea of a National HEalth program so frightening. It's really not. It's providing a service that IMHO every single human being is entitled to. It in no way infringes on your rights to seek private care. It DOES ensure that if you lose your job in future, or when you retire, you will not have to lose everything due to medical bills.
Cain
Straussian
Sure, if you like to be mollycoddled. Some of us prefer to see others suffer before they finally die. It makes life a bit more real (and interesting). Chuck Norris opposes socialized medicine, and so should you.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Hand to mouth.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Community rating is how it works in Australia, although already the companies are working on getting rid of that.
It is providing a service that in my not-at-all-humble-opinion every single human being is not entitled do. Do you understand now? I realize you don't agree. But do you understand?
Hmmmm...it may make it more difficult to seek private care. But I'm too tired at the moment to go into further. Tell me if you don't see how it could make it more difficult to seek private care (and I could of course be wrong), and we could take it from there. But I won't be concious for too much longer tonight.
ysabella
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Messages
- 701
I wouldn't say it's "frightening," I would say it's "riddled with problems." Socialized medicine has lots of problems, although of course, American health care has its own set of problems. Is it that surprising that we don't want to exchange our devil-we-know problems for different ones? Plus, as a species, Americans are kind of taxation-resistant. We think they are too high already, really.
But here in the States we get to listen to Canadians praise their system, and then watch patients travel down here for the treatment they can't get at home (or not in time) and doctors move down here to make more money.
And Canada's system is relatively good. It's hard to sketch them out, of course, but it often sounds to me like it's in better shape than the NHS is. In fact I often wonder whether scale is a major factor, if the system with around 30 million people seems in better shape than the one with 60 million. In which case, a nationalized system in the US (300 million) would be an enormous disaster. However, I see some states experimenting with statewide systems, and I think that might work better for us. They will still merely use our existing, mostly-market-based system and find a new way of insuring certain groups. I don't see us dismantling our entire system anytime soon.
It usually doesn't pay to discuss this with Brits or Canadians, especially Canadians, because it's a point of national pride and even identity, of "having our priorities straight," etc. but I am willing to try.
Unless you're obese, need hip or knee replacement, and live in East Suffolk (like so). Or if you otherwise lose the "post-code lottery." Or, ere long, if you are maybe too old for something to be cost effective, or drink or smoke too much. Nevermind how long or how much you paid into the system, you apparently have less right to treatment than other people do.
...snip...
Hmmmm...it may make it more difficult to seek private care. But I'm too tired at the moment to go into further. Tell me if you don't see how it could make it more difficult to seek private care (and I could of course be wrong), and we could take it from there. But I won't be concious for too much longer tonight.
No it doesn't make it it any more difficult to seek private health care, it may mean you have less money to pay for such health care but the seeking is unaffected by that. Sorry couldn't help myself.
Yes it does mean that you will have less money to pay for any further private medical care you may wish.
What kind of problems do you think are unique to a socialized halth care system?
As to the first bit I don't know the details but your second comment would seem to indicate nothing more then something that is common across a lot of skilled professionals e.g. they can make more money in the USA then they can in other countries. It would also indicate that the costs of providing the health care in the USA is higher then in Canada (if a doctor's hourly rate is higher then someone is paying more).
Complaints about the NHS are often shall I say distorted - certainly in the last few years many of the problems caused by a long term lack of investment in the system have been reversed.
Not that it doesn't have problems but the simple fact is that the extent of its cover and the range of the treatments offered are unmatched by any private system.
It's something I like to bring up when (some of the) horror stories are trotted out "patient left on trolley for 12 hours waiting for emergency treatment" (which we don;t seem to get any longer) - if there are 20 million patients seeking emergency treatment a year it is hardly surprising that some terrible things happen. But that doesn't mean there is anything inherently wrong with the system.
I don't disagree!
Well it is a matter for many of us having different principles and people can get quite emotional about their principles.
And? The first decision is wrong and is being vigourously challenged by many groups in this country and if the decsions can not be supported on clinical grounds then the legal challneges I am sure will suceed. Also and very significantly for this type of problem the way funding is allocated is being changed as we speak (some people me among them are wary of the changes but that's a differnet matter). Soon the patient will in effect be able to take their funds with them to other health authorities and trusts - which means these types of apparent finanical decsions will no longer "save" money for the trusts.
So this is matter of adjusting the system.
Of course some hospitals and areas will provide better care, facilities and treatments then others - this will happen in any system, so it is not a problem unique to a system like the NHS.
Again even assuming all this is true you are not pointing anything that is a unique problem to a system like the NHS. Financial considerations form part of decisions in all health systems.
Well, the idea that a large number of Canadians are coming to the US in order to receive medical care is a myth. There was a study a few years ago entitled “Phantoms in the Snow”, which asked the pretty fundamental question of exactly how many Canadians were coming to the states for medical treatment. The numbers were quite low, and many of the Canadians who received treatment in the US were simply visiting or traveling through the country when they suddenly needed emergency medical care.
If a Toronto native is visiting New York and breaks his arm when he falls down a flight of stairs, is this a sign of the failure of the Canadian healthcare system?
The study also mentioned that the myth would probably continue anyway because too many people have a vested interest in perpetuating it. US insurance companies push it in order to keep Americans hooked into their system, Canadian insurance companies push it to convince Canadians to get supplementary insurance, and Canadian politicians push it to convince the government to put more money in the public healthcare system (We’re failing the people of Canada! We need more money to make our system the best in the world!).
You may notice that whenever the idea of Canadians coming to the states for healthcare is used to attack socialized medicine, the person doing the attacking never offers concrete numbers. Faced with the question of exactly how many Canadians are coming to take advantage of our system, they either get a blank look on their face because they don’t have a clue, or they get defensive because they know it is a crock.
No it doesn't make it it any more difficult to seek private health care, it may mean you have less money to pay for such health care but the seeking is unaffected by that. Sorry couldn't help myself.
I like you, Darat. I don't always agree with your political views, and I even more rarely agree with your admin decisions. But I do like you.
