Someone in the Guardian wrote that the cost of breast cancer treatment in the US would have worked out at $192,000 if uninsured, whereas in the UK it would cost her 'nothing'. She 'loved' New York of course, nobody ever just likes it, but would rather be ill here.
I wrote to the paper enquiring if the lady didn't make substantial National Insurance contributions like the rest of us, or pay taxes.
To my surprise the paper wanted to print this. I declined, I just wanted to make a point to their contributor. If the Guardian readership need to be told that the National Health Service has to be paid for there's no hope.
[Decades ago 'Gorgeous' Henry Miller of the Newcastle Royal Victoria Infirmary wrote a piece in the New Statesman entitled 'Don't Get Ill in America.]
I believe medical bills are the chief cause of personal bankruptcy in the US. Homer Simpson can't afford his heart op. you recall.
I always think of this when I see US medical dramas. Nobody ever mentions money.
Don't get ill in America
Moderator: andysfootball
-
Ugly Betty
- Full Time Gobber
- Posts: 6063
- Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:31 pm
- Location: Stateside
You are so right about this, Jerry. Americans who cannot pay their health care bills are going bankrupt in huge numbers. About 2.2 million last year alone. It's a national disgrace!
The US is no place to get sick if you're not insured, which includes about 47 million Americans...mostly the working poor. We're the richest nation in the world and can afford a national health system, but capitalism trumps the welfare of the people.
We lose about 600,000 people annually to cancer and do nothing. We lost 3,000 on 9/11 and were outraged. We've spent billions since on war and for homeland security while spending a pittance on those who can be saved with the proper investment and the will to save them.
I will say this, however, you can go to most any emergency room in the country and receive care, whether you're insured or not, and whether you're a citizen or not. The down side is that the uninsured wait until they're so sick that they need emergency care. By then, it's much more expensive, often too late and we all end up paying for the silly shortsightedness of the system.
The US is no place to get sick if you're not insured, which includes about 47 million Americans...mostly the working poor. We're the richest nation in the world and can afford a national health system, but capitalism trumps the welfare of the people.
We lose about 600,000 people annually to cancer and do nothing. We lost 3,000 on 9/11 and were outraged. We've spent billions since on war and for homeland security while spending a pittance on those who can be saved with the proper investment and the will to save them.
I will say this, however, you can go to most any emergency room in the country and receive care, whether you're insured or not, and whether you're a citizen or not. The down side is that the uninsured wait until they're so sick that they need emergency care. By then, it's much more expensive, often too late and we all end up paying for the silly shortsightedness of the system.
i once had a freind in america who had to remortgage her home to get her child treatment for excema ... and something like an ultrasound scan for a pregnant woman isnt considered by insurance as necessary .. and if they want one its $500 out of their own pockets ... insurance doesnt like paying out very much for pregnancy
You guys are so gullible.
192 000 USD for breast cancer treatment? That is about one year's wages for a general practitioner in Australia. If 10 000 women a year were treated for this in Australia, it would cost 2.6 billion annually. That is more than the entire cancer treatment budget. 82 000 people are diagnosed with malignant cancer, and 340 000 cases of non-melanoma cancer are diagnosed every year. Lung, melanoma, colorectal, prostate etc only cover 59% of cancers, then there are more exotic cancers and childhood cancers. The estimation seems about 8 times as what it costs in Australia. How is this believable when the US has higher labour productivity, lower taxes and more experimental treatments?
The US has a very socialised medical system just like Britain and Australia. The worst thing they have is very strict licensing on doctors which makes doctors fees exorbitant.
The US has the most expensive medical care, but it is also the best.
That guardian article should show up how it came to it's figures.
The US might be bad for the uninsured but it still offers among the best care to the poor, by virtue of being a wealthier society. Is it really that hard to get insurance? Does your NHS cover everything that US insurance does? Is there another way of paying in lieu of being uninsured? What is the quality like in the two systems? Is the NHS even feasible?
The simple economic fact remains too that a voucher system would be preferable to compulsory state run insurance and subsidised medicines. Why wouldn't it just be better to cut taxes and deregulate your private insurance system and privatise the NHS?
Public healthcare subsidises irresponsible behaviour because the liability is subsidised - "moral hazard". Insurers have this problem all of the time and create policies which deter this kind of behaviour. There should be some kind of efficiency gain in removing this behaviour.
US bankruptcy laws are too lax to the point where they are inefficient and create too many bad debts and destroy productive capacity. Never judge the ability to pay of someone on their bankruptcy status. Check what kind of car they drive.
192 000 USD for breast cancer treatment? That is about one year's wages for a general practitioner in Australia. If 10 000 women a year were treated for this in Australia, it would cost 2.6 billion annually. That is more than the entire cancer treatment budget. 82 000 people are diagnosed with malignant cancer, and 340 000 cases of non-melanoma cancer are diagnosed every year. Lung, melanoma, colorectal, prostate etc only cover 59% of cancers, then there are more exotic cancers and childhood cancers. The estimation seems about 8 times as what it costs in Australia. How is this believable when the US has higher labour productivity, lower taxes and more experimental treatments?
The US has a very socialised medical system just like Britain and Australia. The worst thing they have is very strict licensing on doctors which makes doctors fees exorbitant.
The US has the most expensive medical care, but it is also the best.
That guardian article should show up how it came to it's figures.
The US might be bad for the uninsured but it still offers among the best care to the poor, by virtue of being a wealthier society. Is it really that hard to get insurance? Does your NHS cover everything that US insurance does? Is there another way of paying in lieu of being uninsured? What is the quality like in the two systems? Is the NHS even feasible?
The simple economic fact remains too that a voucher system would be preferable to compulsory state run insurance and subsidised medicines. Why wouldn't it just be better to cut taxes and deregulate your private insurance system and privatise the NHS?
Public healthcare subsidises irresponsible behaviour because the liability is subsidised - "moral hazard". Insurers have this problem all of the time and create policies which deter this kind of behaviour. There should be some kind of efficiency gain in removing this behaviour.
US bankruptcy laws are too lax to the point where they are inefficient and create too many bad debts and destroy productive capacity. Never judge the ability to pay of someone on their bankruptcy status. Check what kind of car they drive.
Insulus cruentam atque bella. Si pugnaverunt eleutheria toties vis bello itidem vel libertatibus conservare autem?
Ad liberandum aliis fieri liberior.
Ad liberandum aliis fieri liberior.
There are six houses on our beach and three of them are owned by Americans, so I get a lot of US information.
In the US, everyone has access to the best medical care in the world.
Unfortunately everyone falls in to three classes.
1.The rich who manage to pay almost no taxes and can certainly afford most medical procedures.
2.The poor who pay no taxes and cannot by law be turned away by emergency rooms.
3.The middle and working classes who pay almost all the taxes like in the rest of the world.
They usually have assets which have to be used as collateral if they need some catastrophic medical intervention.
This class can usually get coverage by some sort of HMO medical insurance which is by no means cheap unless you are lucky enough to have an employer who pays for it.
The problem is, these HMOs are pretty strict about what they will or will not cover and some of them have actually dropped clients who began to use the coverage too much.
The UK, Australia and Canada should take a deep breath before they think of going down that road.
In the US, everyone has access to the best medical care in the world.
Unfortunately everyone falls in to three classes.
1.The rich who manage to pay almost no taxes and can certainly afford most medical procedures.
2.The poor who pay no taxes and cannot by law be turned away by emergency rooms.
3.The middle and working classes who pay almost all the taxes like in the rest of the world.
They usually have assets which have to be used as collateral if they need some catastrophic medical intervention.
This class can usually get coverage by some sort of HMO medical insurance which is by no means cheap unless you are lucky enough to have an employer who pays for it.
The problem is, these HMOs are pretty strict about what they will or will not cover and some of them have actually dropped clients who began to use the coverage too much.
The UK, Australia and Canada should take a deep breath before they think of going down that road.
Really? All I am getting is urban myths and BS so far. Apparently the Guardian reports that US cancer treatment costs 8 times as much as Australia, despite better labour productivity and better medical technology? You guys are oblivious to this flagrant obtuseness or mendacity (take your pick).
Insurance is not "cheap" if your employer pays it! It means the wage bill is higher than "wages", which could have been more employment or spent elsewhere by the employee.
"The problem is, these HMOs are pretty strict about what they will or will not cover and some of them have actually dropped clients who began to use the coverage too much. "
That is the same with any insurance. If this didn't happen, insurance would collapse under the weight of false or specious claims. HMOs have to compete with each other too - because you are dropped doesn't mean you can't go anywhere else.
Insurance is not "cheap" if your employer pays it! It means the wage bill is higher than "wages", which could have been more employment or spent elsewhere by the employee.
"The problem is, these HMOs are pretty strict about what they will or will not cover and some of them have actually dropped clients who began to use the coverage too much. "
That is the same with any insurance. If this didn't happen, insurance would collapse under the weight of false or specious claims. HMOs have to compete with each other too - because you are dropped doesn't mean you can't go anywhere else.
Insulus cruentam atque bella. Si pugnaverunt eleutheria toties vis bello itidem vel libertatibus conservare autem?
Ad liberandum aliis fieri liberior.
Ad liberandum aliis fieri liberior.
This is just a myth - no one can show the nitty gritty of the US health system, especially when there are apparent absurdities like US healthcare costing eight times than Australia despite having better labour productivity.
Insulus cruentam atque bella. Si pugnaverunt eleutheria toties vis bello itidem vel libertatibus conservare autem?
Ad liberandum aliis fieri liberior.
Ad liberandum aliis fieri liberior.
Mr Pres: Don't get hung up on the figure I quoted. If the real one is $25,000 it's still severe. I'll try and check it.
[Later: have checked it. Stella Duffy was recently reviewing Acocella Marchetto's book Cancer Vixen in the Guardian. Eventually M got onto her new husband's insurance, but she worked out the uninsured cost of her diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer in 2004 at $192,720.04 American dollars.]
I know the World Health Organisation in AD 2000 ranked the American system below 18th in the world. There must have been a reason for that.
Do you know?
Private insurers have a bad reputation here because of endowment mortgage and pension mis-selling and similar scandals.
Private medicine doesn’t actually do much. It covers only acute curable conditions (and not accident and emergencies). It will not help with pregnancy and HIV/ Aids, or chronic (incurable) or long-term conditions.
Chronic conditions include asthma, diabetes, and even high blood pressure; cover is also usually excluded for psychiatric care and pre-existing conditions. If you actually claim, that condition becomes pre-existing and you can have trouble switching insurers.
In private medicine insurance about 20% of premiums goes on overheads and administration. In the French and German systems 10%; in the USA 22%. About 5% in the NHS. Lots of schemes are expensive and offer poor value for money. Others are cheap and cover next to nothing. They are riddled with exclusions. Cosmetic surgery is usually excluded. Private hospitals are under no obligation to match the clinical standards of the NHS.
PMI is not cheap. Even basic care can cost the elderly £2,000-3000 a year. A couple at 30 with two children would pay £1100 a year for a standard BUPA care policy. By 60, this amounts to £37,000. Children are not covered after 18. Insurers are after younger people because they do not often claim. Premiums rise with age, usually at five-year intervals. Increased premiums mean that the elderly cannot afford cover.
The American system permits pervasive fraud. June Gibbs Brown, Inspector general of the US Department of Health estimated that private hospitals were overpaid by (15 billion pounds) a year; tales of scams fill the press. The HCA organisation (American) is buying hospitals in London. This company was fined £500 million for the greatest fraud in American medical history; two executives were jailed. The eventual fine will be about a billion dollars.
The death rate in the private Portland Hospital in London for pregnant women is five times the national average. Private hospitals don’t have the emergency teams the NHS has. They go in for unnecessary operations, especially hysterectomies and tonsils. The British Medical Journal claimed in 1993 that one third of private hysterectomies were not necessary. They rely on NHS hospitals to take their patients when an operation goes wrong. Every single British doctor and nurse the private sector employs was NHS trained at the taxpayer’s expense.
Allyson Pollock, professor of health policy at University College London maintains that: ‘Robust research in the US and our own research has shown private health providers deliver worse care and at a greater cost than public providers’.
Privatisation of the NHS would be extremely unpopular in this country. We had that system pre-1948 and it was a disaster.
Charles Webster, official historian of the Health Service, All Souls College, Oxford:
The pre- NHS health services remained deficient from the point of view of all social classes, and they were most defective for those in greatest need. Consensus over the inadequacy of the pre-war health services accounts for the irresistible tide of pressure for the establishment of the NHS.
Michael Barnes, Senior Producer BBC letter to the Listener 27.10. 88
‘Surveys of South Wales miners show that eight per cent in the 15-24 age group had lost all their teeth, while the comparable figure for the 25-34 age group was 23 per cent.
Studies show that more than eighty per cent of the children in Durham were showing signs of early rickets. Richard Titmuss’s classic 1938 study identified a major percentage excess of deaths in the North-east over the South. Deaths from bronchitis were 96 % in excess; TB 112%; maternal mortality was 213% per cent excess.
[The Chief Medical officer of Health was Sir George Newman]
In the early thirties, women’s organisations demanded an official investigation into the number of mothers dying and the scale of disabilities resulting from childbirth. Maternal mortality rates had risen to the point where they surpassed those at the turn of the century. Newman rejected an enquiry but privately conceded the case. Public Record Office documents have shown that an estimated 250,000 women were disabled every five years. Newman argued in a confidential memo that official investigations would lead to embarrassing disclosures and ‘could have but one ending, namely the demonstration of a great mass of sickness and impairment attributable to childbirth which would create a demand for organised treatment by the state.’
[Later: have checked it. Stella Duffy was recently reviewing Acocella Marchetto's book Cancer Vixen in the Guardian. Eventually M got onto her new husband's insurance, but she worked out the uninsured cost of her diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer in 2004 at $192,720.04 American dollars.]
I know the World Health Organisation in AD 2000 ranked the American system below 18th in the world. There must have been a reason for that.
Do you know?
Private insurers have a bad reputation here because of endowment mortgage and pension mis-selling and similar scandals.
Private medicine doesn’t actually do much. It covers only acute curable conditions (and not accident and emergencies). It will not help with pregnancy and HIV/ Aids, or chronic (incurable) or long-term conditions.
Chronic conditions include asthma, diabetes, and even high blood pressure; cover is also usually excluded for psychiatric care and pre-existing conditions. If you actually claim, that condition becomes pre-existing and you can have trouble switching insurers.
In private medicine insurance about 20% of premiums goes on overheads and administration. In the French and German systems 10%; in the USA 22%. About 5% in the NHS. Lots of schemes are expensive and offer poor value for money. Others are cheap and cover next to nothing. They are riddled with exclusions. Cosmetic surgery is usually excluded. Private hospitals are under no obligation to match the clinical standards of the NHS.
PMI is not cheap. Even basic care can cost the elderly £2,000-3000 a year. A couple at 30 with two children would pay £1100 a year for a standard BUPA care policy. By 60, this amounts to £37,000. Children are not covered after 18. Insurers are after younger people because they do not often claim. Premiums rise with age, usually at five-year intervals. Increased premiums mean that the elderly cannot afford cover.
The American system permits pervasive fraud. June Gibbs Brown, Inspector general of the US Department of Health estimated that private hospitals were overpaid by (15 billion pounds) a year; tales of scams fill the press. The HCA organisation (American) is buying hospitals in London. This company was fined £500 million for the greatest fraud in American medical history; two executives were jailed. The eventual fine will be about a billion dollars.
The death rate in the private Portland Hospital in London for pregnant women is five times the national average. Private hospitals don’t have the emergency teams the NHS has. They go in for unnecessary operations, especially hysterectomies and tonsils. The British Medical Journal claimed in 1993 that one third of private hysterectomies were not necessary. They rely on NHS hospitals to take their patients when an operation goes wrong. Every single British doctor and nurse the private sector employs was NHS trained at the taxpayer’s expense.
Allyson Pollock, professor of health policy at University College London maintains that: ‘Robust research in the US and our own research has shown private health providers deliver worse care and at a greater cost than public providers’.
Privatisation of the NHS would be extremely unpopular in this country. We had that system pre-1948 and it was a disaster.
Charles Webster, official historian of the Health Service, All Souls College, Oxford:
The pre- NHS health services remained deficient from the point of view of all social classes, and they were most defective for those in greatest need. Consensus over the inadequacy of the pre-war health services accounts for the irresistible tide of pressure for the establishment of the NHS.
Michael Barnes, Senior Producer BBC letter to the Listener 27.10. 88
‘Surveys of South Wales miners show that eight per cent in the 15-24 age group had lost all their teeth, while the comparable figure for the 25-34 age group was 23 per cent.
Studies show that more than eighty per cent of the children in Durham were showing signs of early rickets. Richard Titmuss’s classic 1938 study identified a major percentage excess of deaths in the North-east over the South. Deaths from bronchitis were 96 % in excess; TB 112%; maternal mortality was 213% per cent excess.
[The Chief Medical officer of Health was Sir George Newman]
In the early thirties, women’s organisations demanded an official investigation into the number of mothers dying and the scale of disabilities resulting from childbirth. Maternal mortality rates had risen to the point where they surpassed those at the turn of the century. Newman rejected an enquiry but privately conceded the case. Public Record Office documents have shown that an estimated 250,000 women were disabled every five years. Newman argued in a confidential memo that official investigations would lead to embarrassing disclosures and ‘could have but one ending, namely the demonstration of a great mass of sickness and impairment attributable to childbirth which would create a demand for organised treatment by the state.’
Last edited by Jerry on Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Ugly Betty
- Full Time Gobber
- Posts: 6063
- Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:31 pm
- Location: Stateside
Actually, I can see breast cancer treatment costing that much in the US if you include surgery, hospital stay, rehab, chemo or radiation treament, d*ugs, prosthetics and follow up care. The costs are actually highest for the uninsured, as health insurance pays a pre-set rate, which is lower than the full cost billed to the uninsured.
Also, keep in mind that we pay a higher cost for prescription d*ugs than any other nation, and certainly far more than countries with national health care systems that can negotiate for lower rates on bulk sales. Bush's Medicare d*ug legislation banned this in 2005. Just before she died, my mother-in-law was on 7 different prescription medications for a variety of problems. Had she not had Medicare coverage, she would have paid nearly $1200 monthly just for her meds.
As for employer paid health insurance, it now averages 40% of employees' total compensation. So if you are paid $50,000 annually, it's costing your employer another $20,000 to provide you with health coverage.
A big part of our problem is the money that gets eaten up by private, for-profit insurance companies. Whereas Medicare only costs taxpayers 3% for administration of the program, private insurers charge up to 18% for administrative costs. With an increasingly aged and obese population, costs will just continue to rise.
Also, keep in mind that we pay a higher cost for prescription d*ugs than any other nation, and certainly far more than countries with national health care systems that can negotiate for lower rates on bulk sales. Bush's Medicare d*ug legislation banned this in 2005. Just before she died, my mother-in-law was on 7 different prescription medications for a variety of problems. Had she not had Medicare coverage, she would have paid nearly $1200 monthly just for her meds.
As for employer paid health insurance, it now averages 40% of employees' total compensation. So if you are paid $50,000 annually, it's costing your employer another $20,000 to provide you with health coverage.
A big part of our problem is the money that gets eaten up by private, for-profit insurance companies. Whereas Medicare only costs taxpayers 3% for administration of the program, private insurers charge up to 18% for administrative costs. With an increasingly aged and obese population, costs will just continue to rise.
-
robpapE2
- Full Time Gobber
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:19 pm
- Location: BIDDICK HALL
- Contact:
Yes in the land of the free ..home of the brave ..if you're black get back etc
Thanks for the points raised in a clear and concise manner ..all well argued (now that makes a change on these boards ..I wonder why ????)
My own left wing take on this (sorry Curly) is a good old SOCIALIST medical system (sssssshhhhh whisper who dares says Phoney Tony) is needed for health not the divide and rule Thatcherite model we have copied here from our American cousins .
Overpriced..over complicated and over here ..now that sounds familiar
I was drinking in Rosie Malones with a Scottish Seaman (from Hamilton no less) this week and we both agreed that Cuba has a fantastic SOCIALIST (that word again Curly) HEALTH SERVICE and naturally this goes down well with the Cubans as they view the expensive capitalist models of health which surround them on all sides.
No wonder Regan..Bush and the other cowboys have tried and failed to depose Uncle Fidel from power !!!!
We await the outcome when Big G(od) takes him to that happy land as he seems close to death ..hopefully more of the same for the Cubans !!
Thanks for the points raised in a clear and concise manner ..all well argued (now that makes a change on these boards ..I wonder why ????)
My own left wing take on this (sorry Curly) is a good old SOCIALIST medical system (sssssshhhhh whisper who dares says Phoney Tony) is needed for health not the divide and rule Thatcherite model we have copied here from our American cousins .
Overpriced..over complicated and over here ..now that sounds familiar
I was drinking in Rosie Malones with a Scottish Seaman (from Hamilton no less) this week and we both agreed that Cuba has a fantastic SOCIALIST (that word again Curly) HEALTH SERVICE and naturally this goes down well with the Cubans as they view the expensive capitalist models of health which surround them on all sides.
No wonder Regan..Bush and the other cowboys have tried and failed to depose Uncle Fidel from power !!!!
We await the outcome when Big G(od) takes him to that happy land as he seems close to death ..hopefully more of the same for the Cubans !!
Ok, having just gone through breast cancer, I can tell you that the costs given in the Guardian report are pretty accurate - actually they are a bit on the low side. I am fortunate to have health insurance, and even more fortunate to have European health insurance specially for ex-pats, which has covered nearly all of my costs. I obviously have contact with a lot of other breast cancer patients, and I can tell you that most of them are not so lucky. The majority of those that I know do indeed have health insurance, but they nevertheless have to pay so much out of their own pockets, that being sick is a real financial burden.
I personally know several people who ended up bankrupt because of medical bills - and these were people WITH health insurance.
The medical insurance system here in the USA stinks to say the least.
I know, because I used to have an American health insurance. They charge crazy monthly premiums, yet still expect you to pay an awful lot of money out of pocket - and will often not cover certain procedures.
The cost of medications here is ridiculous too. One single injection that I needed to keep up my white blood count during chemo cost $6,000! And I had to have 4 of them.
To keep my breast cancer at bay, I now have to take a pill every day.
This costs me $250 per month! That is over $ 8 per pill ! Again, I am lucky - my insurance company will reimburse me for that, but I know countless people who's health insurance doesn't cover the cost of prescription d*ugs.
I know that the NHS is not ideal, but please be grateful that you have it!
Many people here simply cannot afford to carry health insurance, and therefore cannot afford to get ill either!
I personally know several people who ended up bankrupt because of medical bills - and these were people WITH health insurance.
The medical insurance system here in the USA stinks to say the least.
I know, because I used to have an American health insurance. They charge crazy monthly premiums, yet still expect you to pay an awful lot of money out of pocket - and will often not cover certain procedures.
The cost of medications here is ridiculous too. One single injection that I needed to keep up my white blood count during chemo cost $6,000! And I had to have 4 of them.
To keep my breast cancer at bay, I now have to take a pill every day.
This costs me $250 per month! That is over $ 8 per pill ! Again, I am lucky - my insurance company will reimburse me for that, but I know countless people who's health insurance doesn't cover the cost of prescription d*ugs.
I know that the NHS is not ideal, but please be grateful that you have it!
Many people here simply cannot afford to carry health insurance, and therefore cannot afford to get ill either!
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
-
gazza
- Full Time Gobber
- Posts: 5821
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 7:18 pm
- Location: I-SAID-2-SUGARS........
- Contact:
see this american system for what it is.............moral decline and material gain.......this country is fast catching up, with our gp`s
earning in excess of 100.000 pa.......for doing less.......what can you
decipher from that........? answers on a plaster please........
earning in excess of 100.000 pa.......for doing less.......what can you
decipher from that........? answers on a plaster please........
.......GET-ME-A-RUM-INSTEAD........
http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm
Quality Socialist Healthcare
Sad but true.
A voucher system like that proposed for schooling would be better than socialised production of medical goods and services. The fact is state run healthcare isn't socialised insurance at all, because it subsidises losses and doesn't pool risk in the same way like a real insurance system does.
As for the cost of medication:
How much do you pay for your medication, given the amount of tax you pay for it? It isn't free if you pay 40% of your tax bill on healthcare.
The other unfortunate fact is that there is no such thing as public goods. Public goods are allocated in a manner which doesn't reflect their public nature. What right does the Government have to say which d*ugs should be cheaper than others?
Quality Socialist Healthcare
Sad but true.
A voucher system like that proposed for schooling would be better than socialised production of medical goods and services. The fact is state run healthcare isn't socialised insurance at all, because it subsidises losses and doesn't pool risk in the same way like a real insurance system does.
As for the cost of medication:
How much do you pay for your medication, given the amount of tax you pay for it? It isn't free if you pay 40% of your tax bill on healthcare.
The other unfortunate fact is that there is no such thing as public goods. Public goods are allocated in a manner which doesn't reflect their public nature. What right does the Government have to say which d*ugs should be cheaper than others?
Insulus cruentam atque bella. Si pugnaverunt eleutheria toties vis bello itidem vel libertatibus conservare autem?
Ad liberandum aliis fieri liberior.
Ad liberandum aliis fieri liberior.
I wonder if either you or your friend from Hamilton have ever had the misfortune of needing to access the Cuban health system.robpapE2 wrote:Yes in the land of the free ..home of the brave ..if you're black get back etc
Thanks for the points raised in a clear and concise manner ..all well argued (now that makes a change on these boards ..I wonder why ????)
My own left wing take on this (sorry Curly) is a good old SOCIALIST medical system (sssssshhhhh whisper who dares says Phoney Tony) is needed for health not the divide and rule Thatcherite model we have copied here from our American cousins .
Overpriced..over complicated and over here ..now that sounds familiar
I was drinking in Rosie Malones with a Scottish Seaman (from Hamilton no less) this week and we both agreed that Cuba has a fantastic SOCIALIST (that word again Curly) HEALTH SERVICE and naturally this goes down well with the Cubans as they view the expensive capitalist models of health which surround them on all sides.
No wonder Regan..Bush and the other cowboys have tried and failed to depose Uncle Fidel from power !!!!
We await the outcome when Big G(od) takes him to that happy land as he seems close to death ..hopefully more of the same for the Cubans !!
My wife did in February 2004 and fortunately it was only for out patient and X ray treatment.
The cleanliness (or lack of it) would get any greasy spoon restaurant closed by the Health Department.
The equipment was stone age.
The only piece of modern equipment in the place was the credit card machine where us gringos had to pay upfront.
If the Cubans are to get more of the same when Fidel finally gets planted, I feel sorry for them
-
Ugly Betty
- Full Time Gobber
- Posts: 6063
- Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:31 pm
- Location: Stateside
You're right about that, Gazza. It sure isn't free. You poor people pay thru the nose for everything there. Hopefully, though, none of you are having to file for bankruptcy because you can't pay your medical bills.gazza wrote:free healthcare in britain......hang-on, let me stop laffin.........
national insurance, prescription charges, and good old v.a.t......
And Gazza,
your pensioners don't have to choose between getting the medical attention and prescriptions that they need and eating! That is sometimes the case here! Countless "retirees" cannot afford to retire fully or at all, for that matter. They continue to work well past retirement age - often simply to maintain some kind of health insurance!
Now, if I remember correctly, you pay 6% of your earnings in National Insurance. That covers comprehensive health care, unemployment, sickness benefits, and your state pension!
If I only had to pay a total of 6% of my earnings to cover all of the above, I would be very happy! Not to mention, that if, in England, you were to have the misfortune of being out of work, or unable to work for whatever reason, you would still enjoy the above benefits, without having to continue to pay a National Insurance stamp for the duration of the "out-of-work" period.
No Gazza - healthcare is NOT free in the UK - but it is available to EVERYONE, regardless of their financial situation.
your pensioners don't have to choose between getting the medical attention and prescriptions that they need and eating! That is sometimes the case here! Countless "retirees" cannot afford to retire fully or at all, for that matter. They continue to work well past retirement age - often simply to maintain some kind of health insurance!
Now, if I remember correctly, you pay 6% of your earnings in National Insurance. That covers comprehensive health care, unemployment, sickness benefits, and your state pension!
If I only had to pay a total of 6% of my earnings to cover all of the above, I would be very happy! Not to mention, that if, in England, you were to have the misfortune of being out of work, or unable to work for whatever reason, you would still enjoy the above benefits, without having to continue to pay a National Insurance stamp for the duration of the "out-of-work" period.
No Gazza - healthcare is NOT free in the UK - but it is available to EVERYONE, regardless of their financial situation.
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
-
gazza
- Full Time Gobber
- Posts: 5821
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 7:18 pm
- Location: I-SAID-2-SUGARS........
- Contact:
thanks for that now, point being, we are fast catching up...........we hear
almost daily, the amount of cash the govt. keep pumping into this nhs and
how things are so hunky dorey,
but the staff appear to tell a different story, moral decline, our old folks
are in alot of cases still suffering due to the climate and forced to live
in the community, the care being supplied by relatives etc, these hospital
managers are like city accountants, yet the money, NEVER, goes far....
notice their solid oak tables.....their big cars.......and did i mention the
new playboy gp`s we now seem to have.........oh yes, i did, didnt eye.....?
almost daily, the amount of cash the govt. keep pumping into this nhs and
how things are so hunky dorey,
but the staff appear to tell a different story, moral decline, our old folks
are in alot of cases still suffering due to the climate and forced to live
in the community, the care being supplied by relatives etc, these hospital
managers are like city accountants, yet the money, NEVER, goes far....
notice their solid oak tables.....their big cars.......and did i mention the
new playboy gp`s we now seem to have.........oh yes, i did, didnt eye.....?
.......GET-ME-A-RUM-INSTEAD........
