Toothache? Tough.

[Libsmasher]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3646522.ece

Yet another NHS horror story.

 

[Bunz]

Horrible. Thankfully we dont have that problem here. 7m people who need to wait for dental work, at least when thier turn comes up they will get thier work done. In the meantime, nearly 50million Americans have zero health insurance.

As a side note, I went into my government provided dental exam just a few weeks ago.
Full exam, Xrays, and cleaning...no cavities as well. But more importantly, I paid for it through my taxes. I didnt pay a nickel out of pocket for that direct service.

Because some countries have issues with thier universal health care, it doesnt mean that we cant learn from those mistakes and still provide it to our fellow Americans. Healthy people makes for a healthy and productive society.

 

[Libsmasher]

Horrible. Thankfully we dont have that problem here. 7m people who need to wait for dental work, at least when thier turn comes up they will get thier work done. In the meantime, nearly 50million Americans have zero health insurance.

Give up on that old chestnut. Those people are very temporarily between jobs, too cheap to buy it, young and don't think they need any, very healthy and don't think they need any. The vast majority are not screaming and whining over not having health insurance, and for the great majority, it's nothing more than a personal choice.

As a side note, I went into my government provided dental exam just a few weeks ago.
Full exam, Xrays, and cleaning...no cavities as well. But more importantly, I paid for it through my taxes. I didnt pay a nickel out of pocket for that direct service.

Not relevent - a "universal" health rationing system wouldn't work at all like on the reservation.

Because some countries have issues with thier universal health care, it doesnt mean that we cant learn from those mistakes and still provide it to our fellow Americans.

No, it does mean that. "Universal" health rationing systems are intrinsically flawed: When health care is "free", there is no restraint in consuming it, so in the end it becomes rationed. Because it is universal, people who lead a reckless life vis a vis AIDS and illegal drugs and dangerous sports and drinking and cigarette smoking etc etc etc, who otherwise wouldn't (and shouldn't) be covered by private insurers, or only at very high premiums, are allowed into the state rationing system and generate huge bills that drags down the service available for everyone else. State health rationing systems are run by the same people who run the DMV - indifferent, hostile, smug, time-serving government workers who don't give a damn whether you like their inevitably crummy service, because they know you can't take your business down the street - that's how ALL monopolies work. For the same reason, the standard of care is dragged down because there is no spur of competition. The level of care, the medicines available, the procedures available are all limited by the current government budget priorities and the arbitrary decisions of unanswerable bureaucrats. On and on and on.

 

[9sublime]

Libsmasher, some people simply cannot afford health insurance while being employed because they do not earn the same money as you. Should they be left to die if they get ill? I don't think a nation that allows that should be given the title of developed nation.

 

[Andy]

Libsmasher, some people simply cannot afford health insurance while being employed because they do not earn the same money as you. Should they be left to die if they get ill? I don't think a nation that allows that should be given the title of developed nation.

Do you have any evidence that supports this theory? Moreover, given that in other countries with 'universal health care', the tax rate is more than twice how much we pay, how do you claim they can't afford insurance here, yet can afford twice the tax rate the would be required for 'free health care'? That doesn't make sense, nor is logical.

Example, I myself am in the supposed millions that does not have dental insurance. Because I can't afford it? No. Because I'm between jobs? No. Because it's just too expansive? No.

The reason I do not have dental insurance is because I found that for the cost of a cap or even root canal, I can pay less paying the dentist bill directly, than I cost to purchase insurance and have them cover the cost.

But for the sake of discussion, look at France. The french system of 100% government paid for healh care has resulted in a tax system of nearly 45% just for social security, which in France, covers health care, and that does not include regular income tax. Now I will only earn about $20,000 this year. If we emulate France, I will end up paying $9,000 in taxes, not including regular income tax, just for our so-called free health care.

Meanwhile I currently have a policy the covers up to $2 million for $113/month. That's $1356 a year. Let's see, $9,000 in taxes for 'free health care', or $1356 and I pay it myself. Better still, universal health care, universally sucks in every country it's tried. So, time to wake up people. You going to shoot your own foot trying to get it free.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

More good christian ethics,

**** the poor.

Vive la France

 

[Bunz]

Give up on that old chestnut. Those people are very temporarily between jobs, too cheap to buy it, young and don't think they need any, very healthy and don't think they need any. The vast majority are not screaming and whining over not having health insurance, and for the great majority, it's nothing more than a personal choice.

The great majority? Please give evidence of this. Because I outright reject your notion that it is based on the vast majorities personal choice. I know lots of people who simply cannot afford it on thier own. Especially those with families. They are not offered it at reduced rates through thier employer, or have to wait a long period of time, such as a year.

Not relevent - a "universal" health rationing system wouldn't work at all like on the reservation.

No why not? Ill be the first to admit IHS isnt perfect, but it is certainly better than nothing. No system is perfect, especially our current system.

No, it does mean that. "Universal" health rationing systems are intrinsically flawed:

As is the private medical insurance industry. They are accountable to nobody but thier share holders, and need to ensure hefty profits for their executives to live high on the hog. When they do everything they can to deny the services thier customers already pay for. I have gone the route of purchasing private insurance, and have also had it provided in part by my employer, but went back to IHS because the level of care was virtually the same and there was much less hassle.

When health care is "free", there is no restraint in consuming it, so in the end it becomes rationed.

It is not free, and you know it. It is paid for through taxes.

Because it is universal, people who lead a reckless life vis a vis AIDS and illegal drugs and dangerous sports and drinking and cigarette smoking etc etc etc, who otherwise wouldn't (and shouldn't) be covered by private insurers, or only at very high premiums, are allowed into the state rationing system and generate huge bills that drags down the service available for everyone else.

Those people also drag down the private insurance companies. But you are failing to consider those that otherwise live a healthy lifestyle that can and do get as sick, if not more sick than everyone else.

State health rationing systems are run by the same people who run the DMV - indifferent, hostile, smug, time-serving government workers who don't give a damn whether you like their inevitably crummy service, because they know you can't take your business down the street - that's how ALL monopolies work.

Firstly, there is nothing that says you cant get your own insurance, or pay out of pocket for whatever you like.

For the same reason, the standard of care is dragged down because there is no spur of competition. The level of care, the medicines available, the procedures available are all limited by the current government budget priorities and the arbitrary decisions of unanswerable bureaucrats. On and on and on.

The level of care for most people now is based arbitrarily on the decision of an insurance company. Often after the fact when whatever care was necessary, is done. Its not until later that the bill comes with the decision not to cover whatever care was provided.

What I dont get about the resident right wingers here and thier views on health care is based on the medical insurance lobby talking points they are fed through talk radio. Imagine how much more money employers would have for other things if they werent burdened with ever increasing costs of health insurance for thier employees. Like I said earlier, there is no perfect system and our current one is badly broken. There are examples of national health care working quite well in other places. Certainly we could look to what has and hasnt worked in other countries and possibly learn something from those systems and make one that suits the needs and abilities of Americans to make a workable system, and not have delusions that it will be perfect, but an improvement from what we have now, which is that 50million Americans are one serious injury or illness away from death, or long term financial ruin.

 

[The Scotsman]

Startling revelations huh!! The UK Health service is not perfect How can we go on!!??

In order to alleviate this national catastrophe the NHS managed an amazing feat of managerial wizardry!! they increased the funding for those regions and thanks be to god managed to averted a horrific calamity. Us Brits can be quite clever when required! and all those people with teeth dropping out of their heads? well, they did have recourse to a service other than that of the tooth fairy!

 

[The Scotsman]

Better still, universal health care, universally sucks in every country it's tried. So, time to wake up people. You going to shoot your own foot trying to get it free.

..........have you any experience of the French medical system or the German system? Judging from your comment probably not! The French medical system is one of the best in the world! But hey, you are right they have the highest taxes in the world to go along with it. The French though are proud of their social security and rightly so its very comprehensive and they are prepared to pay for it!

You may well not be prepared to pay the costs of insurance its your perfect right. As you say it can be expensive and especially so if you've not had the need for it, however, that's what insurance is about! You don't need it until you need it and if you don't have it you wish you'd had it!

 

[PLC1]

Horrible. Thankfully we dont have that problem here. 7m people who need to wait for dental work, at least when thier turn comes up they will get thier work done. In the meantime, nearly 50million Americans have zero health insurance.

As a side note, I went into my government provided dental exam just a few weeks ago.
Full exam, Xrays, and cleaning...no cavities as well. But more importantly, I paid for it through my taxes. I didnt pay a nickel out of pocket for that direct service.

Because some countries have issues with thier universal health care, it doesnt mean that we cant learn from those mistakes and still provide it to our fellow Americans. Healthy people makes for a healthy and productive society.

Alaska has universal medical care, including dental, paid for by taxes?

Wow!

How do they do that?

 

[Libsmasher]

Libsmasher, some people simply cannot afford health insurance while being employed because they do not earn the same money as you. Should they be left to die if they get ill? I don't think a nation that allows that should be given the title of developed nation.

But they AREN'T under our current system - they are covered by Medicaid. This is a HUGE government program - why does it seem nobody has ever heard of it? The idea that a nation should do something about sick people who are poor doesn't at all imply socialized medicine.

 

[The Scotsman]

The idea that a nation should do something about sick people who are poor doesn't at all imply socialized medicine.

..........you are perfectly correct, thus, should 9Sub and I spend our time posting extreme situations where cases of medical hardship and depravity are reported as being "sensational" when in fact they are not?

Each to his own Libs

 

[Andy]

..........have you any experience of the French medical system or the German system? Judging from your comment probably not! The French medical system is one of the best in the world! But hey, you are right they have the highest taxes in the world to go along with it. The French though are proud of their social security and rightly so its very comprehensive and they are prepared to pay for it!

You may well not be prepared to pay the costs of insurance its your perfect right. As you say it can be expensive and especially so if you've not had the need for it, however, that's what insurance is about! You don't need it until you need it and if you don't have it you wish you'd had it!

Erm... did you read what I said? Or just make up something that you could attack?

Whether I personally have experience in the French or German system is unimportant, and wouldn't be relevant even if I did.

You can not judge whether an entire system is effective by a single instance. For example, in Canada, people can end up waiting years for the most basic of surgeries while in pain. Or if a mother needs neo-natal care, can end up being shuffled from hospital to hospital because a lack of room, and ultimately end up in the US.

However in all cases, it's luck of the draw. If you happen to show up when they happen to have a bed, or happen to have a surgery team available, you can get very quick quality service. That person might conclude that the system works incredibly well. But when you take a look at the system as a whole, you can see more people are in pain, more people are shuffled around like a deck of cards, more people are sent, or forced to seek care out of the country.

Another problem is that massive problems may exist in specific areas, while other areas may not show signs of problems. You might get top quality treatment for a broken arm, but nearly die waiting for an MRI to see if you have cancer.

FRENCH
The French system is a perfect example of a system that has been failing, yet not show signs in other areas until recently. The French system has been in deficit for every single year it has existed since 1985. Now, granted for some time it was providing decent care, but it was in deficit.

If you earned less money than you spent every year, you might be able to hold out using loans and credit cards, but unless you fixed the hemorrhaging, you going to end up losing everything you have.

Here's some information I bet you didn't know.
The French health care is no longer universal. Nearly 1/5 of the population is no longer covered. They have to (gasp) pay for their health care.
The French health care system is no longer free. There are co-pays and doctor visit fees... just like here in the US.

Why did they do this? Because the system was failing, and they had to cut cost. The government is not a giant social bank that we can draw an infinite supply of money to pay for our health care.

The French system has been costing the public nearly 45% of their income in taxes, while at the same time reducing services, or increasing out of pocket cost. That... is a bad system.

Read this from an article on the French system by a doctor currently practicing in France.

“If I have a patient with high blood pressure,” says Salzman, “I might see them once every 6 months, prescribe them appropriate medicine, tell them to contact me if anything changes — but otherwise, see you in 6 months.”

“Sometimes I'll see other doctors' patients for various reasons and I'll ask, ‚How often do you see the doctor?' They'll say, ‚Every month.' Every month? With no change?”

“So there you have a doctor who's charging the system 5 times more often than me... And it's just because he's trying to make his rent.”

It will be the generation now entering the workforce who will pay for the years of deficit spending through some mix of higher taxes and reduced access.

So let's recap. The government screws over doctors by paying them nearly nothing, who in turn screw the government back by seeing patients 5 times as often in order to make more money off the governmental system, which is taxing the population at nearly 45% while reducing access and services.

You think this is a system we need to emulate? Are you ready to pay almost half your yearly income in taxes for reducing service?

Finely, about what I can and can not afford... you missed what I said. I do have health insurance. I can afford it very easy. I do not have dental insurance. Why? Because I'm saving money. I can pay for my dental visits on my own without any insurance coverage, for less money. If other people want dental insurance, go for it. It's not that expensive. It's just more expensive than if you pay for it yourself. (which is logical given obviously the insurance company has to make some money).

 

[Andy]

The great majority? Please give evidence of this. Because I outright reject your notion that it is based on the vast majorities personal choice. I know lots of people who simply cannot afford it on thier own. Especially those with families. They are not offered it at reduced rates through thier employer, or have to wait a long period of time, such as a year.

I have not met anyone who could not afford health insurance. Not one. Even the guy at Wendy's flipping burgers for minimum wage can afford basic health insurance. So where this idea comes from that there are all these people out there that choose between food and health care coverage, I just don't believe it.

Further, the people I do know who didn't have insurance, it wasn't because they could not afford it, it was because they choose to not pay it. And even the one guy I know who ended up with cancer but drank, smoked, and played the lotto instead of buying health care coverage, guess what... he went to the hospital and he was treated for it. So I'm sorry, I just don't believe you.

No why not? Ill be the first to admit IHS isnt perfect, but it is certainly better than nothing. No system is perfect, especially our current system.

The problem with our system is that we are being forced to pay for everyone else's health care. Something that would be worse if we made it a public system. IHS has the same long term issues that all socialized health systems do... it will run out of money unless it increases taxes, or reduces services. Do some research on IHS, it has massive issues. It might be working well for you now, but it won't for very long. Again, you can't take one instance and claim the entire system works as well is your limited personal experience. Look at these articles covering the rest of the system.

Indian Health Service Inadequate
Indian Health Care System Deemed Inadequate by Kansas Tribe

As is the private medical insurance industry. They are accountable to nobody but thier share holders, and need to ensure hefty profits for their executives to live high on the hog. When they do everything they can to deny the services thier customers already pay for. I have gone the route of purchasing private insurance, and have also had it provided in part by my employer, but went back to IHS because the level of care was virtually the same and there was much less hassle.

They are accountable. You just cancel the insurance and get a policy with a different company. The problem we have isn't that insurance industry isn't accountable, it's the insurance is tied to your job, and they know it. And who caused that problem? Government. We need to completely remove the connection between insurance and employment, and that whole issue will be gone. Don't sit there and say that the insurance industry isn't accountable, when you have the power to choose which company you pay and what policy you get. That's lazy Americanism... oh I don't want to deal with it, I know I'll cry to government. Which is exactly what they want.

But more than that, if you pay attention, you'd see Government abuses the public far more than any company ever has, and you'd be giving them more opportunity to do so.

It is not free, and you know it. It is paid for through taxes.

Yeah, far more taxes than you ever pay in insurance premiums. This is something I just don't get. You complain about how much health care costs, but when you look at other countries with the so-called free health care, they pay 3 times as much as we do in taxes for worse quality care. The French pay 45% in taxes for health care, and I can detail for you all the shortcomings of their system. Now go look at your check and look at your gross pay, multiply it by 0.45 and then compare that number with how much your yearly insurance premiums are. You tell me which system is more expensive.

I'll give you an example: Me. My income last year was $20K (to make it simple).

Under the benevolent, socialist, for the public good, universal care system:
$9,000 / yearly taxes for health care.

Under the evil, for profit, greedy Capitalist, pay for service care system:
$1,440 / yearly insurance premium.

Oh wow, I so want that 'gouge me till I bleed' socialist system....

Firstly, there is nothing that says you cant get your own insurance, or pay out of pocket for whatever you like.

I'm ok with this provided I can opt-out of paying for a socialized crap system. It is morally wrong to force me to pay for a system I will not use due to my choice to buy private health insurance. Further, it is also morally wrong to force me to pay for a socialized system by proxy of the hospitals having to recoup the money lost on socialized patients. If I have to pay more for service, because socialized care doesn't cover the cost of services provided, that's wrong.

What I dont get about the resident right wingers here and thier views on health care is based on the medical insurance lobby talking points they are fed through talk radio. Imagine how much more money employers would have for other things if they werent burdened with ever increasing costs of health insurance for thier employees. There are examples of national health care working quite well in other places.

Please, no lame bull spewing ok? I don't listen to talk radio at all. I can't pick up a single station where I work, and after work I'm busy. So don't sit there and try and excuse other people for 'thinking independently' just cause you can't answer our points. That 'you are just saying what you heard on talk radio' cop-out is really pathetic and doesn't even apply to me. The reason I believe and say these things is because I have researched the topic myself, and have come to the conclusion that socialism doesn't work... ever.

If you can name for me one single example of a socialized health care system that work, feel free. Produce your strong reasons. If I thought that it would work, I'd be for it. Who wouldn't? If I thought I could get everything for free, I'd be first in line to sign up.

The fact is, it does not work. I can promise you, if the system is completely socialized, it does not work. Name your country, name the system, you put it here, I'll show you evidence that it is either is failed, or will fail in the future. In 1985 everyone said France's system is great. But it was in deficit every year. Then they said well yeah it's losing money but it still provides great universal service. Then the deficit reached into the billions every year. But but it still is good and universal! Now, they cut out 1/5 the population and added co-pays and doctors fees. But but it's still a darn good system! The government has increased taxes to 45% to cover cost and more service cuts are in the works. So what's your excuse? What's your big arguement? Feel free, you tell me where it does work?

 

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Give up on that old chestnut. Those people are very temporarily between jobs, too cheap to buy it, young and don't think they need any, very healthy and don't think they need any. The vast majority are not screaming and whining over not having health insurance, and for the great majority, it's nothing more than a personal choice.

The great majority? Please give evidence of this.

For just the younger people who have minimal needs, eg from the WSJ:

According to the latest Census data, 56% of the uninsured are adults aged 18-34. True enough, forcing them to be a part of a same-price-for-everyone insurance pool will likely bring down premiums. These young people generally need minimal health care ($1,500 a year, on average, according to a Commonwealth Fund study).

In most states, (but not New York and Vermont), young adults who buy health insurance are charged premiums that reflect their low medical needs. A 25-year-old man can buy a $1,000 deductible policy for a quarter to a third of what a 55-year-old man has to pay. (In Manchester, N.H., a 25-year-old man pays $156 per month, while a 55-year-old pays $542 for the same policy, according to ehealthinsurance.com).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119941501118966929.html

Because I outright reject your notion that it is based on the vast majorities personal choice. I know lots of people who simply cannot afford it on thier own. Especially those with families. They are not offered it at reduced rates through thier employer, or have to wait a long period of time, such as a year.

Your anecdotal evidence is irrelevent. If you look up the studies done as to why people don't have medical insurance, eg the one done by Kaiser Foundation, you'll see the biggest reason offered by them is the cost. The lib media translates that to mean they can't afford it, but what is REALLY bundled together in that answer is "I can't afford it" ANNNNNNNNDDD "I'd rather use my money for other things". Also, the frequently-cited 47 million people number probably includes illegal alien invaders, and there are 20 million of those.

Quote:
Not relevent - a "universal" health rationing system wouldn't work at all like on the reservation.

No why not?

Because the charity that the government can afford for a handful of indians won't work on the scale of a third of a billion people.

Quote:
No, it does mean that. "Universal" health rationing systems are intrinsically flawed:

As is the private medical insurance industry. They are accountable to nobody but thier share holders, and need to ensure hefty profits for their executives to live high on the hog. When they do everything they can to deny the services thier customers already pay for. I have gone the route of purchasing private insurance, and have also had it provided in part by my employer, but went back to IHS because the level of care was virtually the same and there was much less hassle.

Baloney. When you have an insurance contract with them, you can sue them if they don't come across. I've had several insurance companies through work, and now Blue Cross as a contractor - I've never had any problems.

Quote:
When health care is "free", there is no restraint in consuming it, so in the end it becomes rationed.

It is not free, and you know it. It is paid for through taxes.

I put quotes around "free" einstein, and you missed the thrust of the comment, which was there is no such thing as "universal health care" - the systems that call themselves that ration health care.

Quote:
Because it is universal, people who lead a reckless life vis a vis AIDS and illegal drugs and dangerous sports and drinking and cigarette smoking etc etc etc, who otherwise wouldn't (and shouldn't) be covered by private insurers, or only at very high premiums, are allowed into the state rationing system and generate huge bills that drags down the service available for everyone else.

Those people also drag down the private insurance companies. But you are failing to consider those that otherwise live a healthy lifestyle that can and do get as sick, if not more sick than everyone else.

NO, you're wrong - read more carefully. "Universal" health care systems offer rationed health care to all, private companies DON'T insure people with risky lifestyles, or charge them more.

Quote:
State health rationing systems are run by the same people who run the DMV - indifferent, hostile, smug, time-serving government workers who don't give a damn whether you like their inevitably crummy service, because they know you can't take your business down the street - that's how ALL monopolies work.

Firstly, there is nothing that says you cant get your own insurance, or pay out of pocket for whatever you like.

OH, GREAT! I can pay once to support the state system with my taxes, and pay a second time to get private coverage. Sounds like a great plan.

Quote:
For the same reason, the standard of care is dragged down because there is no spur of competition. The level of care, the medicines available, the procedures available are all limited by the current government budget priorities and the arbitrary decisions of unanswerable bureaucrats. On and on and on.

The level of care for most people now is based arbitrarily on the decision of an insurance company.

False. When you buy a policy, they lay out with great detail what's covered and how much.

Often after the fact when whatever care was necessary, is done. Its not until later that the bill comes with the decision not to cover whatever care was provided.

Simply false.

What I dont get about the resident right wingers here and thier views on health care is based on the medical insurance lobby talking points they are fed through talk radio.

Ewwwwww - you insulted me - give yourself an infraction. Er, wait - no....infractions are only for non-mods.

Imagine how much more money employers would have for other things if they werent burdened with ever increasing costs of health insurance for thier employees.

What dreck - they STILL would have the burden via taxes to support the state system.

Like I said earlier, there is no perfect system and our current one is badly broken.

When one looks at the actual performance, it's farr better than the socialized systems.

but an improvement from what we have now, which is that 50million Americans are one serious injury or illness away from death, or long term financial ruin.

That's complete fiction - it would subject hundreds of millions of people to a vastly reduced level of care.