National Health Service..

Joedjr said:
If it quacks like a duck...... insurance is just protection money against the health care racket.
That's why the gov should get involved. Maybe they will see that we're just getting the shakedown and take care of the perps.
Click to expand...
Our gov't has never proved to be more efficient, and less cost to the individual in any venture than private industry. What they do do that private industry can't is charge future generations for today's bills, ie hide costs. I believe with nationalized medicine it will cost us more for less and worse care.

earl said:
We are fortunate in the great health plan my employer provides, but it costs him more than $5000 per annually. I certainly would not be able to fund that myself. At the same time, my wife has to take a particular treatment which costs $3000 per month. This is the kind of stuff that has many Americans quaking in their boots. earl
Click to expand...
How can anyone beat that? $420 per month for $3000 return??

My employer pays $359 for me, to wit I use less than $300 per year...so on your side the insurance company loses and on mine they win...
 
wil said:
Our gov't has never proved to be more efficient, and less cost to the individual in any venture than private industry. What they do do that private industry can't is charge future generations for today's bills, ie hide costs. I believe with nationalized medicine it will cost us more for less and worse care.

How can anyone beat that? $420 per month for $3000 return??

My employer pays $359 for me, to wit I use less than $300 per year...so on your side the insurance company loses and on mine they win...
Click to expand...
My point Wil was: 1) if I had to pay the $5000 myself to buy insurance, couldn't do it and 2) what would we do with no insurance coverage and a $40,000 bill for treatment annually? I'm very lucky Wil, many millions of Americans are not. Can you say that our current system is actually the best possible one?! That sounds more like an ideological response as opposed to a factual one, Wil. earl
 
earl said:
My point Wil was: 1) if I had to pay the $5000 myself to buy insurance, couldn't do it and 2) what would we do with no insurance coverage and a $40,000 bill for treatment annually? I'm very lucky Wil, many millions of Americans are not. Can you say that our current system is actually the best possible one?! That sounds more like an ideological response as opposed to a factual one, Wil. earl
Click to expand...

My best friend became parapalegic in a car accident. She had private insurance and she roomed at the ICU with another young back injury patient who had Medicare.

While her parents fought constantly with the insurance company to get her surgeries, medications, physical therapy, and a decent wheelchair, her roommate got all those things with no problems. I think it had something to do with the health insurance wanting the car insurance to pay, and vice versa. So her parents spent all this time doing paperwork and phone calls while she has a broken back.

What a system to dehumanize one of the most basic human needs- physical and emotional support during trauma and illness.

Don't know what the answer is, but I know private insurance ain't it. I have horror stories worse than this one in which people died or were left untreated even though they had "good" insurance. I'm rather skeptical about it all.
 
arthra said:
Hey friends thanks for the responses!

Looks like we may have "hit a nerve" here... I can now compare some of the health services we have in the US .. our HMO's, etc. but I do sincerely appreciate your responses.

- Art
Click to expand...
Managed care sucks, be it corporate or governmental. Especially for women giving birth. I have many HMO horror stories about women whose babies have died, and have nearly died themselves, which could have been easily prevented with the proper care. :mad:
 
My Big Fat Opinion

Following the justice system, the medical system assumes doctors (like judges) are perfect. This is unrealistic. Lets take a more moderate approach to quality assurance & mal-practice prevention. Some things that could help make medicine affordable in the USA:

1. Add more tiers to the medical program. We've already added Physician's Assistants, and that has helped make medicine and medical training more accessible.
2. License the lower tiers like nurses and pharmacists to give more prescriptions & to diagnose more common illnesses.
3. Reconsider how medical malpractice is handled. If malpractice suits are killing patients, then let's take that into consideration when rendering judgments. Punish criminal medical offenders, instead of fining.
4. Add more tiers for dentistry besides just Phd's. Dentistry is inconceivably expensive and nobody can get insurance for it. Whats the point in getting my teeth fixed if I can't eat with them?
 
arthra said:
I'd be curious to know what the experiences have been of those who have used a National Health Service as they have in some countries like Canada, Britain, France or Scandinavia.
Click to expand...
These are all very different things.

Firstly, you have to distinguish between national health insurance and a national health care system. In France, health care is paid for out of taxation, as it is in Britain. The difference is that here care is largely provided by a nationalised industry, and in France it isn't. Almost all British general practitioners are state employees; none of the French ones are.

Not only do we have health care as a nationalised industry, but the money you pay in taxes can only be spent in that industry. In France or Spain, you can go to any hospital, regardless of who owns it, and get most of the cost of your treatment back from the government. In Britain, you can go to a state hospital totally free, or a privately-owned hospital and pay all the bills yourself.

The British system is chronically short of money. I suspect that is partly due to the inefficiency of a large nationalised industry, partly because it tries to be totally free. Norway has a nationalised health system, but you still pay a fee when you visit your doctor. In Sweden you also make a contribution towards the cost of treatment.

My personal hospital experience is a couple of minor operations in the private sector, and an emergency admission and follow-up in the state one. The private hospital was wonderful. The doctors in the NHS were good, but the accommodation and food were appalling and the administration worse. I went for a test and they didn't have my notes, so I had to explain why I was there and where to send the results. When I returned to the original specialist, he didn't have the test results and I had to tell him about them!
 
How does the British NHS deal with situations where there's a range of possible treatments, with widely differing costs?

For example, a tooth infection might be treated by removing the tooth (least expensive), a filling, a crown, a root canal or an implant (most expensive).
 
I was on the NHS for dentistry.My dentist went off the NHS a few years back and now charges a fee of a little under £10 per month. This includes I free check up each year plus one hygienist appointment.
Fillings, extractions etc are charged for.
A root canal costs £212(approx) and an extraction (I had last week:mad:) cost £76.
...no idea about implants..(oy gevalt!!)

Regarding the NHS generally, I have no complaints personally, although I do know of many complaints similar to those I, Brian has mentioned.

:>)
 
Last edited:
Re: National Health Service.

Dan0813 said:
How does the British NHS deal with situations where there's a range of possible treatments, with widely differing costs?
Click to expand...
We go for the cheaper option.

The NHS in the UK is being broken up and privatised because no-one with any serious money – corporates and the really rich – pays tax in the UK, it's all safely offshore, so there's not enough money to support it.
 
This is part of the reason why affordable, universal health care is a myth.

FDA approves hepatitis C drug that costs $1,125 per pill

WASHINGTON – Federal health officials have approved a daily pill that can cure the most common form of hepatitis C without the grueling pill-and-injection cocktail long used to treat the virus.

But the drug's $1,125-per-pill price is sure to increase criticism of drugmaker Gilead Sciences, whose pricing strategy for an older hepatitis drug has already drawn scorn from patient groups, insurers and politicians worldwide.
...
Click to expand...

FDA approves hepatitis C drug that costs $1,125 per pill | Fox News
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top