National Health Service bashers make me sick


Blackleaf
#1
The row in the United States about the reform of its health system has spilled over to the United Kingdom.

Many American right-wingers and Republicans are attacking Britain's National Health Service (NHS), which was formed by Health Minister Aneurin Bevan in the aftermath of World War II when the country was in ruins, calling in it "socialised" and saying it denies proper medical care to the elderly and disabled.

One American newspaper even said that the disabled physicist Steven Hawking wouldn't have survived today had he been treated on Britain's NHS - but Hawking is British and has been treated on the NHS since the 1960s and has carried on living way beyond the few years life expectancy that doctors gave him when his motor neurone disease was diagnosed in the Sixties. He recently told the US: "I wouldn't be here today were it not for the NHS."

Barack Obama's stepmother, who is British, has also come out to defend the NHS.

Statistics show that in most ways, Britain's NHS is more effective than America's health care system (the WHO ranks the British health service as 18th best in the world and the US health service as 37th), and this is despite the fact that the US spends more on Britain on health. And surveys show the British are happier with their system than the Americans are with theirs. So the British must be doing something right that the Americans are doing wrong.

And the great thing is, the British get better treatment than the Yanks and we get it all for free, without having to sell our homes as so often happens in the US (see below).

Surely the Americans are just jealous?

NHS bashers make me sick


By Mark Austin
16/08/2009
The Mirror



There’s nothing we love more than indulging in a good old bout of NHS bashing.

But equally there’s nothing we hate more than outsiders, particularly perhaps Americans, getting stuck in to things we cherish.

And this week has seen just such a case.

The NHS has been dragged into a vicious political battle raging over health care in the United States.

President Obama wants to introduce a bigger government safety-net into the largely privatised system in a country where nearly 75 million people have no proper insurance.


The NHS was founded by Health Minister Aneurin Bevan on 5th July 1948

But right-wing opponents and vested interests are pointing to our Health Service as an example of the “disaster that awaits them”.

In campaign ads the NHS is being portrayed as an “evil, socialist system” that kills off the elderly and the disabled.

They paint a picture of dirty, MRSA-ridden wards and endless queues for treatment.

HEALTH SERVICES: US vs UK

Total health spending (% of GDP 2007)
US - 16%
UK - 8.4%

Spending per head of population (Adjusted for purchasing power parity)
US - $7,290
UK - $2,992

Life expectancy at birth

US - 80 years (female), 75 years (male)
UK - 81 years (female), 76 years (male)

Infant mortality rate (per 100,000 live births)

US - 6.26 deaths
UK - 4.85 deaths

The role of the public sector (% of all money spent on health coming from public funds)
US - 45%
UK - 82%

Children who died for every 100,000 treated in hospital in the US in 2000

With private medical insurance - 7.9
With only state insurance - 18.7

******************************************
Overall views of each health system

Minor changes needed
US - 38%
UK - 20%

Fundamental changes needed
US - 48%
UK - 46%

Rebuild completely
US - 33%
UK - 12%

*********************************************
Perception of wasteful care

Doctor recommended treatment you thought had little or no benefit

US - 27%
UK - 15%

Often/sometimes felt time was wasted due to poorly organised care

US -36%
UK - 18%

********************************
Cost-related problems

Did not visit visit a doctor when had a medical problem

US - 36%
UK - 4%

Did not get recommended test, treatment or follow-up

US - 38%
UK - 5%

Any of the above access problems because of cost

US - 53%
UK - 12%

*************************************************
Access to doctor

Same-day appointment

US - 27%
UK - 48%

6+ days' wait or can never get appointment

US - 23%
UK - 14%

(Source: 2008 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Sicker Adults)

Now I wouldn’t for a moment claim the NHS is anywhere near perfect. For example our success rates in dealing with cancer are much lower than in America.

The outcome also tends to be better for heart attack victims in the US.

But I will tell you one thing with absolute conviction.

If you’re knocked down by a bus and seriously injured tomorrow, just pray you end up in an NHS accident and emerg- ency ward.

You’ll get some of the best surgeons, the best anaesthetists and the best nurses in the world. You will also have the best chance of survival.

And there will be no mention of money. Not before your treatment, not during it and not after it.

In America, the first thing they’ll look for is not your pulse or the extent of your injuries but rather your credit card.

When you ask “What’s the damage?”, they won’t answer “a broken leg and a smashed pelvis but you’ll be fine”.

No. They’re far more likely to say, “Oh, about five thousand dollars”.

I should declare an interest here. My wife is currently a casualty doctor in an NHS hospital. And one story she told me sums up all my concerns about the American system of healthcare.

When she was a paediatrician she was looking after a baby with multiple congen-ital health problems and who required frequent operations and lengthy and intensive aftercare.

The NHS put considerable time and resources into the child’s treatment and it was never questioned.

When a doctor from America visited the unit, my wife asked him what would have happened to such a child in the States.

She was told the parents would almost certainly have had to sell their home. When the money ran out the treatment would have stopped. The problem, said the visiting doctor, was that most health insurance in America does not cover congenital abnormalities.

There is much wrong with the NHS that badly needs sorting out. Too much money spent on bureaucracy and not enough on the medicine for a start.

But sometimes we just don’t realise how lucky we are.
**********************************************

Barack Obama's stepmum: UK's NHS saved me

By Karen Rockett
16/08/2009
The Mirror


Kezia Obama, Barack Obama's British stepmother


Barack Obama's stepmum said yesterday she owed her life to the NHS.

British doctors and nurses saved Kezia Obama when she suffered kidney failure seven years ago. The 66-year-old, who lives in Bracknell, Berks, said she would not have been able to afford the treatment in the US.

Mrs Obama said: "If it wasn't for the NHS, I wouldn't have been alive to see our family's greatest moment - Barack sworn in.

"The doctors, nurses and surgeons cared for me like I was their own child."

And a top American doctor who left the US to work in the UK yesterday said: "I'm so proud to be part of the NHS."

Dr John Rubin, 56, a consultant at London's Royal National Throat, Ear and Nose Hospital, believes his home country would benefit from adopting our system. He said: "The ethos of the NHS is patient care and it is a huge part of what makes Britain so special. America can learn a lot."

An international row has erupted over President Obama's drive to reform the US health service. Republican Sarah Palin claimed Mr Obama would require the elderly and disabled to appear before "death panels".

mirror.co.uk
Last edited by Blackleaf; Aug 16th, 2009 at 11:01 AM..
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#2
Right on, blackleaf. The British have a great health care system. I have lived in Britain for eight years, I have used the NHS. My wife worked for NHS, she has a small pension from NHS which will start next year, when she turns 60.

Now, I have been fortunate in that I have enjoyed almost perfect health all my life. However, on the rare occasions that I had to use NHS, I found it to be a very good efficient, well organized system.

I have said it before ,the extreme right in USA cannot even entertain the thought that somebody outside USA may have a better idea which Americans would do well to follow. They start with the premise that American health care system is perfect, the best in the world, system in other countries are of third world standard. Then they go around finding evidence for that.

They look for horror stories. I am sure each system has its own horror stories. I am sure Canada has some, USA probably has more than most (I remember reading the statistic somewhere that in USA one family goes bankrupt every three minutes, because of health care costs). Then they use that as evidence to show that health care system in other countries are little better than third world systems.

It is Bible thumping patriotism at its best (or worst, depending upon one’s viewpoint).
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#3
I have demonstrated in the past how Canadian system is better than American system, how it outperforms American system in virtually every aspect (less money spent, higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality etc.).

But that holds true for almost any system in the developed countries. Compare the health care system of any developed country in the world with American system and it is the same story. USA spends more for health and gets far less in return.
 
earth_as_one
#4
Our Canadian health care system, flawed as it is, is still better than the American system. I'll take our "socialized government run death panels" over their "privatized insurance company for killing for profit death panels" any day.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#5
Believe what you like, some people need something like a Socialist State in order to exist. Give one a comfy homey feeling that someone is still taking care of you.

"USA spends more for health and gets far less in return."

Yes we do, you do get what you pay for though. Americans are by in large happier with their health system, it gets results for them. Yes it can use some tweaks like getting everyone a yearly checkup. Putting on limit on liability claims. But that is all I would change.

 
Tonington
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post



Yes it can use some tweaks like getting everyone a yearly checkup. Putting on limit on liability claims. But that is all I would change.

So, you think your system is fine otherwise, even though someone can lose everything by declaring a personal bankruptcy due to medical bills they cannot pay? The real bone of contention as I understand it is not getting everyone their check-up yearly, but rather making sure they can afford the treatment they need or have received.

Like so many other things, everything may seem fine and dandy until you or someone you know falls victim to such a system.

That is atrocious.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#7
Yes we do, you do get what you pay for though. Americans are by in large happier with their health system, it gets results for them.

Maybe Americans think that it gets results for them, I don’t know. I do know that at least 50 million Americans will disagree with you (those that don’t have any insurance). It is one thing what the Americans think. They think theirs is the greatest country in the world, so maybe they also think that their health care is the greatest in the world, I don’t know.

But as I said, statistics do not bear it out. USA spends more than any other county in the world, is near the bottom of developed countries when it comes to life expectancy, is fairly low when it comes to infant mortality etc. By all indications, it does not get the results for them, no matter what Americans think.

Anyway, somebody must be getting fat with the huge amounts of money spent, obviously it is not going for health care. Personally, I suspect the insurance companies.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

So, you think your system is fine otherwise, even though someone can lose everything by declaring a personal bankruptcy due to medical bills they cannot pay? The real bone of contention as I understand it is not getting everyone their check-up yearly, but rather making sure they can afford the treatment they need or have received.

Like so many other things, everything may seem fine and dandy until you or someone you know falls victim to such a system.

That is atrocious.

Where do people get those stories that everyone who cannot pay their medical bills loses their homes? If someone cannot pay for treatment, First if there working and have "Disability Insurance" will take care of it, if they have no personal insurance, Medicare will take over. No one can be forced to sell there homes.

Those kind of stories are like National Health will lead to committees that will decide if your to die or not. Doesn't and won't happen here.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Where do people get those stories that everyone who cannot pay their medical bills loses their homes? If someone cannot pay for treatment, First if there working and have "Disability Insurance" will take care of it, if they have no personal insurance, Medicare will take over. No one can be forced to sell there homes.

Those kind of stories are like National Health will lead to committees that will decide if your to die or not. Doesn't and won't happen here.

Sorry ironsides, but we do see stories from time to time on American TV, of middle class families going bankrupt because of medical costs.

And as I said, I remember the statistics from somewhere that one family goes bankrupt every three minutes due to medial costs. So bankruptcy problem is very real.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#10
Sorry ironsides, I was wrong, it is not every 3 minutes, it is every 30 seconds. I was understating the problem by a factor of six. So let me set the record straight.

In USA, a family files for bankruptcy every 30 seconds due to health care costs. This was a Harvard study. It also found that of those who filed for bankruptcy due to medical costs, 68% had medical insurance (though obviously inadequate).

The Health Care Reform Debate Blog - cmhmd: Facts About Healthcare Costs - National Coalition on Health Care
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

Yes we do, you do get what you pay for though. Americans are by in large happier with their health system, it gets results for them.

Maybe Americans think that it gets results for them, I don’t know. I do know that at least 50 million Americans will disagree with you (those that don’t have any insurance). It is one thing what the Americans think. They think theirs is the greatest country in the world, so maybe they also think that their health care is the greatest in the world, I don’t know.

But as I said, statistics do not bear it out. USA spends more than any other county in the world, is near the bottom of developed countries when it comes to life expectancy, is fairly low when it comes to infant mortality etc. By all indications, it does not get the results for them, no matter what Americans think.

Anyway, somebody must be getting fat with the huge amounts of money spent, obviously it is not going for health care. Personally, I suspect the insurance companies.


You know 50 million Americans, now that I doubt. If you believe the radical Left wing your probably right, but you said you do not believe either right or Left extremism. Now as for Life Expectancy, we are rated #30 nearer the Top than the bottom. Granted 30 is not the greatest and needs improvement, but National Health Insurance is not the answer. Maybe if we stop giving coverage to every legal and illegal immigrant we could better utilize the money for our own citizens. You are right though about the insurance companies getting fat off the money also. See control those two things and all is much better. National Health care will only get pulled into the whirlpool of greed, and another huge bureaucracy will come from it.
 
Tonington
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Where do people get those stories that everyone who cannot pay their medical bills loses their homes?



Well, for starters I didn't say everyone. I said "can", as in it happens. Not regularly, but it does happen.

Relevant literature:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi...ff.w5.63v1.pdf

Bankruptcy Is The Tip Of A Medical-Debt Iceberg -- Seifert and Rukavina 25 (2): w89 -- Health Affairs

Medical Bankruptcy: Myth Versus Fact -- Dranove and Millenson 25 (2): w74 -- Health Affairs

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_...dical_debt.pdf

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcon...melissa_jacoby

There's no shortage of literature on the subject. There is quibbling over how prevalent it really is. So, if that's your game, then how much is an acceptable amount?
 
earth_as_one
#13
Even Americans with health insurance can loose it when they get sick, because their illness causes them to stop working which causes them to loose their health insurance benefits, which causes bankruptcy.

Quote:

February 3, 2005

Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.

The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.

Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most.

Families in bankruptcy suffered many privations -- 30 percent had a utility cut off and 61 percent went without needed medical care....

Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds

Sounds like under the American plan, you are only covered when you are well and not covered when you get seriously ill.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#14
Most people filed for bankruptcy because they lost jobs and could not afford to pay mortgages, some but not many for medical reasons. If you are working and have a medical plan when you get sick, you are usually protected totally.

Bankruptcies climbing in Minnesota, U.S. | StarTribune.com

Bankruptcies are Booming -- Seeking Alpha

I will be fair:
Universal Health Care IS Possible in the United States


Do you have these kind of laws?

Homestead Exemption Laws

State Laws: States I have highlighted homes are fully protected, the other states have either no protection or partial protection.

These laws are for your information only. You should check the state codes for the most current version. All amounts are stated in general terms as specific variations may apply.
  • Alabama - Up to $5,000 in value, or up to 160 acres in area. - Code of Alabama, § 6-10-2
  • Alaska - Up to $64,800, no area limitation. - Alaska Statutes, § 09.39.010
  • Arizona - Up to $100,000, no area limitation Arizona Revised Statutes, § 33-1101
  • Arkansas - Up to $2,500 in value, or at least ¼ acre for city homesteads, 80 acres for rural homesteads Arkansas Code, §§ 16- 66- 210 and 218; Arkansas Constitution Article 9
  • California - Up to $50,000 in value. California Code Annotated, §704.730
  • Colorado - Up to $45,000 in value, no area limitation Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated, §38-41-201
  • Connecticut - Connecticut General Statutes Annotated, § 52- 352b
  • Delaware - None - provided Delaware Code Annotated, §4901- 3
  • District of Columbia - D. C. provides an exemption equal to owner's aggregate interest in real property (No monetary or area limitations) District of Columbia Code § 15- 501. DC does not call this a homestead exemption.
  • Florida - Exemption equal to value of property as assessed for tax purposes (No monetary limitations) - area limitations of ½ acre urban land or 160 acres rural land Florida Constitution, Article 10 § 4
  • Georgia - Up to $5,000 in value, no area limitation. Code of Georgia, Annotated, § 44- 13-1 and 44- 13- 100
  • Hawaii - Up to $20,000, but the head of a family and persons 65 years of age or older are allowed up to $30,000, no area limitation Hawaii Revised Statutes, §§ 651- 91, 92
  • Idaho - Up to $50,000 in value, no area limitation Idaho Code § 55- 1003
  • Illinois - Up to $7,500 in value, no area limitation. Where multiple owners, can be increased to $15,000 Illinois Compiled Statutes, Annotated, § 734 5/ 12- 901
  • Indiana - Up to $7,500 for residence, up to $4,000 for additional property, no area limitation. Co-owner, if also a joint debtor, may claim additional $7,500. Annotated Indiana Code, § 34- 55- 10-2
  • Iowa - No monetary limitation, but a minimum value of $500 - area limitations of ½ acre urban land or 40 acres rural land Iowa Code Annotated, §§ 561.2 and 561.16
  • Kansas - No monetary limitation - area limitations of 1 acre urban land or 160 acres rural land Kansas Constitution, Article 15 § 9 and Kansas Statutes, Annotated, § 60-2301
  • Kentucky - Up to $5,000 in value, no area limitation Kentucky Revised Statutes, § 427.060
  • Louisiana - Up to $25,000, but may include entirety of property in cases of catastrophic or terminal illness or injury. Area limitations of 5 acres urban land or 200 acres rural land Louisiana Statutes Annotated, § 20:1
  • Maine - Up to $25,000 in value, but may be up to $60,000 under certain circumstances, no area limitation Main Revised Statutes, Annotated, §4422
  • Maryland - Up to $3,000, but in Title XI bankruptcy proceedings, up to $2,500, no area limitation Annotated Code of Maryland, § 11-504
  • Massachusetts - Up to $300,000 in value, no area limitation Annotated Laws of Massachusetts, § 188- 1
  • Michigan - Up to $3,500 in value - area limitations of 1 acres urban land or 40 acres rural land Michigan Compiled Laws, § 600.6023
  • Minnesota - Up to $200,000 in value, but up to $500,000 if used primarily for agricultural purposes- area limitations of ½ acre urban land or 160 acres rural land Minnesota Statutes, Annotated, §510.02
  • Mississippi - Up to $75,000 in value - area limitation of 160 acres Annotated Mississippi Code, § 85- 3-21
  • Missouri - Up to $8,000 in value, no area limitation Annotated Missouri Statutes, § 513.475
  • Montana - Up to $100,000 in value, no area limitation Montana Code, Annotated, §§ 70- 32-101, 70- 32- 104 and 70- 32- 201
  • Nebraska - Up to $12,500 in value - area limitation of 2 lots, urban land or 160 acres rural land Revised Statutes of Nebraska, § 40-101
  • Nevada - Up to $125,000 in equity, no area limitation Nevada Revised Statutes, § 115- 010
  • New Hampshire - Up to $50,000 in value, no area limitation New Hampshire Revised Statutes, Annotated, § 480:1
  • New Jersey - No homestead exemption is provided, but an exemption for personal property of up to $1,000 is allowed New Jersey Statutes, Annotated, § 2A: 17- 1 and 2A: 17-17
  • New Mexico - Up to $30,000 in value, no area limitation New Mexico Statutes, Annotated, § 2-10-9
  • New York - Up to $10,000 above liens and encumbrances in value, no area limitation Consolidated Laws of New York, Annotated, CPLR § 5206
  • North Carolina - Up to $10,000 in value, no area limitation General Statutes of North Carolina, Annotated, §1C- 1601 and North Carolina Constitution, Article X
  • North Dakota - Up to $80,000 in value, no area limitation North Dakota Century Code, Annotated, § 47- 18- 01
  • Ohio - Up to $5,000 in value, no area limitation Ohio Revised Code, § 2329.66
  • Oklahoma - Unlimited in value - area limitations of 1 acre urban land or 160 acres rural land. However, where using more than 25% of property for business purpose, the value drops to $5,000. Oklahoma Statutes, Annoted, §§1 and 2
  • Oregon - Up to $25,000 in value - area limitations of one city block if within a city or 160 acres rural land Oregon Revised Statutes, § 23.240
  • Pennsylvania - No homestead exemption provided, but a general monetary exemption of $300 exists. Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Annotated, §§ 8121, et. Seq.
  • Rhode Island - Up to $150,000 in value, no area limitation General Laws of Rhode Island, § 9- 26- 4.1
  • South Carolina - Although no homestead exemption is provided, an exemption for personal and real property of up to $10,000 in value may include property claimed as a residence Code of Laws of South Carolina, § 15- 41-30
  • South Dakota - No monetary limitation - area limitation of one dwelling house and contiguous lots used in good faith South Dakota Codified Laws, §§ 43-31-1 and 43-31-4
  • Tennessee - Up to $5,000, but may be up to $7,500 if claimed by two persons as a homestead, no area limitation Tennessee Code, Annotated, § 26-2-301
  • Texas - No monetary limitation - area limitation of 10 acres urban land or 100 acres of rural land if claimed by a single person. A family may claim 200 acres of rural land Texas Property Code, Annotated, §§ 41.001 and 41.002 and Texas Constitution, Article 16 § 51
  • Utah - Up to $20,000 in value, but only $5,000 in value if property is not primary residence - area limitation of 1 acre Utah Code, §78-23-3
  • Vermont - Up to $75,000 in value, no area limitation Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 27, § 101
  • Virginia - Up to $5,000, but may be increased by $500 for each dependant residing on property, no area limitation Code of Virginia, §34-4
  • Washington - Generally, up to $40,000 in value, but may be unlimited if used against income taxes on retirement plan benefits, no area limitation Revised Code of Washington, Annotated, § 6.13.030
  • West Virginia - Up to $5,000 in value, but an additional $7,500 may be available in cases of "catastrophic illness or injury," no area limitation West Virginia Code, Annotated, §§ 38-9-1 and 38-10-4
  • Wisconsin - Up to $40,000 in value. No area limitation. - Wisconsin Statutes, Annotated, § 815.20
  • Wyoming - Up to $10,000 in value. Each co-owner is entitled to a homestead exemption. Wyoming Statutes § 1-20-101
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#15
Don't worry ironsides sjp is argueing about something we don't even have.
In Canada each province is responsible for health care ,and as such we have 10 different systems,and probably three teritorial systems.
By in large our health care is okay in trauma situations but we are lacking in so called non essential areas.Wait times are large and beauracracy is staggering.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

Don't worry ironsides sjp is argueing about something we don't even have.
In Canada each province is responsible for health care ,and as such we have 10 different systems,and probably three teritorial systems.
By in large our health care is okay in trauma situations but we are lacking in so called non essential areas.Wait times are large and beauracracy is staggering.


Thank you, I finally read something that sums it all up. It would be like us trying to coordinate 50 healthcare systems thru the Federal goverment. Doesn't change the fact that we in the U.S. spend to much on healthcare though. We need something better as do you. Both improvements will cost us.
http://www.medhunters.com/articles/healthcareInCanada.html
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#17
Most people filed for bankruptcy because they lost jobs and could not afford to pay mortgages, some but not many for medical reasons. If you are working and have a medical plan when you get sick, you are usually protected totally.

Not true, ironsides. According to Harvard study I quoted, 50% of them file for bankruptcy because of unexpected health care costs. This is what the Harvard study says:

In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses.9 Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

I have already given you the link in my previous post.

So half the bankruptcies are filed due to medical reasons. Is that many? I don’t know. You claim that not many are filed for medical reasons. Perhaps you may not consider 50% as many, but I do.
 
YoungJoonKim
#18
why are we debating this..
argh...[sicken..because he saw this kind of debate over and over again for no real change. ]

We should just go with socialism by the way.
Its for the win.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

Most people filed for bankruptcy because they lost jobs and could not afford to pay mortgages, some but not many for medical reasons. If you are working and have a medical plan when you get sick, you are usually protected totally.

Not true, ironsides. According to Harvard study I quoted, 50% of them file for bankruptcy because of unexpected health care costs. This is what the Harvard study says:

In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses.9 Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

I have already given you the link in my previous post.

So half the bankruptcies are filed due to medical reasons. Is that many? I don’t know. You claim that not many are filed for medical reasons. Perhaps you may not consider 50% as many, but I do.


You quoted hearsay about what Harvard University supposedly found. " The Health Care Reform Debate Blog - cmhmd


Dedicated to gathering information on health care reform, including my thoughts on current news and data important to the discussion."

 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by YoungJoonKim View Post

why are we debating this..
argh...[sicken..because he saw this kind of debate over and over again for no real change. ]

We should just go with socialism by the way.
Its for the win.

Dunno, nothing better to do I guess.
Need no stinking socialism.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#21  Top Rated Post
Both the British and Canadian systems are better than ours. As for why the right wing criticizes both, they do so because they know they can always count on the Democratic party to remain silent and to acquiesce in every political conflict.

Obama was given a decisive mandate to bring about health care reform when he was elected. But his own party has stood in the way of reform legislation. Therefore, don't blame the Republicans for the lack of change. The blame goes squarely on the Democrats.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#22
I have a great idea. All those people that want somebody to look after them should go join a Hutterite colony. I know they are looking for people and would be very welcoming.
 
earth_as_one
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

You quoted hearsay about what Harvard University supposedly found. " The Health Care Reform Debate Blog - cmhmd


Dedicated to gathering information on health care reform, including my thoughts on current news and data important to the discussion."

Your criticize SJP for referencing hearsay and then quote a blog to back up your point???

Here is a link to the Harvard University Study:
http://bdp.law.harvard.edu/pdfs/pape...ess_Injury.pdf
Quote:

In 2001, 1.458 million American families filed for bankruptcy. To investigate
medical contributors to bankruptcy, we surveyed 1,771 personal bankruptcy filers in five
federal courts and subsequently completed in-depth interviews with 931 of them. About
half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9–2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy.

SJP is correct.

Also only six states protect Americans from losing their homes due to illness. The rest give little to no protection. Millions of bankrupt Americans who got sick lost their jobs as a result, which means they lost their job related health benefits causing them to declare bankruptcy and eventually loose your home.
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Believe what you like, some people need something like a Socialist State in order to exist. Give one a comfy homey feeling that someone is still taking care of you.

"USA spends more for health and gets far less in return."

Yes we do, you do get what you pay for though. Americans are by in large happier with their health system, it gets results for them. Yes it can use some tweaks like getting everyone a yearly checkup. Putting on limit on liability claims. But that is all I would change.

I can only conclude that you didn't read the original post fully, because it showed amongst other things, that Americans are by and large, less happy with their health system than the British. It showed further, that for the vast majority of quality indicators, USA is not getting what they are paying for. They pay something like triple and have higher mortality rates in everything but cancer(and heart attacks), and I imagine that occurs because of socialist style experimental cancer research taking care of individuals.

This was all there in the post and you didn't even bother trying to refute it. So I can only conclude that you didn't read it.

Let me paraphrase:

You are less happy with your health care than other nations are with theirs.
You pay more for lower quality in all but a few specialised areas where billions of dollars of public funds are sunk in.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#25
Your criticize SJP for referencing hearsay and then quote a blog to back up your point???

Earth_as_one, I think ironsides was just nit picking. The blog clearly referred to the Harvard study, anybody could have found the Harvard study with just one Google command. Ironsides could have found it. Thanks for finding and posting it.

But the point is, the blog quoted Harvard study, a study by a respectable, ivy league university. It is not as if the link was to some extremist website, it was to Harvard study.

Ironsides was just quibbling over details.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post

I can only conclude that you didn't read the original post fully, because it showed amongst other things, that Americans are by and large, less happy with their health system than the British. It showed further, that for the vast majority of quality indicators, USA is not getting what they are paying for. They pay something like triple and have higher mortality rates in everything but cancer(and heart attacks), and I imagine that occurs because of socialist style experimental cancer research taking care of individuals.

This was all there in the post and you didn't even bother trying to refute it. So I can only conclude that you didn't read it.

Let me paraphrase:

You are less happy with your health care than other nations are with theirs.
You pay more for lower quality in all but a few specialised areas where billions of dollars of public funds are sunk in.



Never mentioned who these Americans were. As the Obama administration pushes for a national health care plan, studies show that most Americans are overwhelmingly happy with their own health care -- but they are dissatisfied with the country's overall system, because most Americans who have insurance believe that those who don't have it are not receiving care.
Those same studies, however, show that a surprisingly large 70 percent of the estimated 46 million Americans who don't have insurance say they do, in fact, receive health care, and that a vast majority of them are satisfied with it.
A survey conducted jointly by the Kaiser Family Foundation, ABC News and USA Today , released in October 2006, found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with their own personal medical care, but only 44 percent were satisfied with the overall quality of the American medical system. The survey is the only recent poll for which data is publicly available that allows for a comparison of the satisfaction of insured and uninsured Americans. (The data from a just-completed New York Times/CBS poll won't be publicly available for several months; the results that have been reported so far don't make the comparisons discussed in this article.)

As Obama Pushes National Health Care, Most Americans Already Happy With Coverage - Political News - FOXNews.com
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#27
oops my apologies to SJP.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#28
As I've said before, Canada is the worlds second largest country in terms of land area but we are about thirty sixth largest in population. Canada's health care system gets spotty where the population thins out. The best systems in the world would have the same problems in our country. Most Canadians are happy with the system we have except in those areas where the population thins out and we have to pay doctors extra to practice in some of these outlying areas. If you choose to live fifty miles away from doctors or a hospital, or medical labs, you are going to pay a little more for less service. Both the Canadian health care system and the British National Health system work better than what the Americans have and it costs less per capita or as a percentage of GDP. The difference is mainly the huge costs added by large medical insurance companies, that Canada and Britain don't have. Thank God!
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#29
I agree that your system works fine for your population, but would get lost with ours. 335 million people who don't balk to much when the goverment raises taxes do not want another major reason for the goverment to get their hands on our money. I am not rich by any means, but I do not want to get into another goverment fiasco. As I have said before, let the goverment fix Social Security, Medicare and Medicade which are governmental health and welfare programs that they ruined and tried blaming everyone else first before starting another bureaucracy that will also fail. No more "let's try it before rejecting it", it is Socialism plain and simple. Want to reduce costs, control the runaway insurance rates and claims.


 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

I agree that your system works fine for your population, but would get lost with ours. 335 million people who don't balk to much when the goverment raises taxes do not want another major reason for the goverment to get their hands on our money. I am not rich by any means, but I do not want to get into another goverment fiasco. As I have said before, let the goverment fix Social Security, Medicare and Medicade which are governmental health and welfare programs that they ruined and tried blaming everyone else first before starting another bureaucracy that will also fail. No more "let's try it before rejecting it", it is Socialism plain and simple. Want to reduce costs, control the runaway insurance rates and claims.

Control the runaway insurance rates and claims..... Good luck with that, eh?

Control bankers, insurance people and lawyers. They're the ones who feed from the insanity