5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Update on the waiting list issue, by the way. The Norwegian system is basicly divided between three norm groups, There's the groups of big hospitals, notably Haukeland in Bergen (one of the best burn units in Europe, for instance), Radiumhospitalet and Rikshospitalet in Oslo, Radium being the best choice for cancer. Then we have the regional hospitals, Troms?, Trondheim, Kristiansand etc., and the local hospitals in the districts.

In the Norwegian system there's complete freedom to pick any hospital you prefer. Hospitals are rated online, on pretty much anything, if you're waiting for an operation, there is another government run website that'll let you know which hospitals can take your case fastest, which can cut months of the waiting times.

One significant reason why there's long waiting lists is that people just don't take the time to check which hospital will afford them fastest treatment.

Ironicly, it's to a large degree a case of most patients being to lazy to cut time off their wait by looking up hospitals with shorter waiting times..

:)
 

Cobol74

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
17,507
Location
The banana republic of Ukania
Car(s)
Honda Accord 2.2 i-Dtec Sport Estate.Hyundai Ix20
Actually, it's pretty clear you folks don't actually understand your own health care systems -- not surprising, since many of the issues we are discussing only really impact the seriously ill.

For the NHS, just a simple google news search of "NHS denies procedure" will yield pages and pages of articles talking about exactly this issue (not every single one is 100% on target to this discussion, but the first page of my search of that just yielded at least two articles directly on point).

For example, to quote from a result on the first page of many results....

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/h...s-decides-to-pay-for-new-drug-91466-25649252/



Steve
Steve, Why that is news is because it is very very rare. I suspect that in other countries - no well in the US that is routine I suppose - not on list then do not get.

Also do you guys have premium waiver? (That is when you claim the benefit from the Insurance company, and they pay net of the premium off the claim; by doing it that way it keeps you covered for the length of the treatment/benefit without call on you to remember to pay them?).

We do have Provate Health Insurance (BUPA and another one I can recall its name) in the UK but it funds better "Hotel" conditions and a bit of queue jumping, recently (The one thing Tony Blair got right!) not so much of a problem the wait for non urgent treatment.

As I said before I think that the truth is that Americans do not want to be forced to pay for other sick people. I think I can understand that but it does have consequences for your society you must recognise. Th Europeans are not getting at you (Americans) just trying to correct a mistaken impression about social health cares systems. Personally the thought of possibly going bankrupt - which is viewed as a disgrace here, or not being covered for treatment I may need horryfying and I do not understand how Americans ncan really.
 
Last edited:

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
The trouble with that is that there are always tons of individual stories.
Meaning what? That they're irrelevant?

There are more than 250 million Americans with outstanding health care coverage that don't experience any of these issues ...
Ignoring of course, all those pesky stories of people getting fucked over by their insurance company. Every year ~1.5 million Americans declare bankruptcy. 60% of those bankruptcies are filed due to outstanding medical bills. It's a problem that is not going to solve itself.

... and get health care of a far higher standard than any of the European nations.
Cite your source.

Those hundreds of millions of people have no interest in the long waits and limited choice that the nationalized systems provide.
You have been trying to make this a black and white (totally private v totally nationalized) argument. It is not. Even in the UK, with its socialized healthcare, you can still purchase private insurance.


You have to be a total idiot to think that the only options in the world are crappy cheap coverage for everyone or good coverage for some.
Funny, I thought that's what you were basing your argument on, especially since you have presented no alternative to covering the uninsured in this nation.

For someone that prides themselves on saying "health care is a right" you continually overlook that Norway's health care has some of the longest wait times in Europe. How is that right? In my book, that's just a scam. You say "health care for everyone" but it really means "crap for everyone." That's not admirable, it's abominable.
How does a long wait time equate to crap healthcare?

Or the fact that universal coverage has long waiting lines and significant rationing? Again, don't take my word for it... at least take the second to search on it and realize that there's a ton of flaws there.
I'm not doing your research for you. You're the one making the claims, you need to present supporting data. Otherwise I see no reason for me to reply with anything more elegant than, "Bullshit."


Remember that the big hole in America's coverage is that 6 out of 100 people aren't covered and can't afford it (the other 6 out of 100 make more than $50,000/year, so it's a matter of "don't want to pay" not "can't afford")
6 out of 100? :lol: Try 1 in 7. My source is the 2006 US Census. What's yours? Anyway, at the time there were just under 46 million people in the US who were uninsured. 21% of those people were immigrants, both legal and illegal.


The bottom line is no facts have been presented on behalf of universal coverage. Even you want to present "financial advantages" -- which is the same as saying "why it's not as good, but it's cheaper" isn't it? If, as folks are wont to say, it's so much better...why isn't it significantly better in all those health metrics?
Because if you pay twice as much for something, it must be better right? :?

In what aspects is US healthcare "significantly better" than a universal system in Western Europe? I don't want to hear more bullshit about "long lines."



As I've said before, I want to see an America that helps those that cannot help themselves but not at the expense of the vast majority of Americans that have excellent health coverage.
Which you can have, if we adopted a system similar to say, Germany.

When even the labor unions -- the ultimate liberal bastion of America -- are fighting against nationalized health care, you KNOW it's barking up the wrong tree. (of course, you'll probably claim some giant black heliocopter conspiracy there, I don't know)
:rolleyes: No one proposed nationalized healthcare. At this point, no one is even persisting with public option. Unions did not oppose healthcare reform. They did not oppose public option. What they did oppose was the ridiculous 40% "Cadillac Tax" on group insurance plans.


Oh, and when ya'll sit down and throw life expectancy, etc., out there... are you really making the case that Americans are fundamentally as healthy? Or is it that universal health care keeps people out of McDonalds?
If you've got a better metric for measuring a nations health than by all means let us know. And really, if our healthcare is sooo amazing, it shouldn't matter what we eat, should it? Something else you need to consider is that with most insurance plans you have co-pays for everything. Those co-pays discourage people from going to the doctor to get their regular check ups, which doesn't give their doctor the opportunity to say, "Quit eating at McDonalds fatass."

You're far more interested in being masters of the universe than actually debating the facts. Have at it.
At least we have some interest in improving things, instead of sticking with the status quo.


As I said before I think that the truth is that Americans do not want to be forced to pay for other sick people.
In my experience that's how many conservatives feel. They've got insurance (until their provider decides to drop them) so fuck everyone else. I think it's symptomatic of a much larger problem, that our whole concept of individualism has gotten completely out of hand, but that's something for another thread.
 

British_Rover

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
4,289
Location
Torrington, CT United States
Car(s)
2005 Gr Cherokee, dealer demo
Ahh the daily show is awesome.

The first part of this episode is just perfect.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/127679/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-thu-feb-11-2010#s-p1-so-i0

The true awesomeness starts around the 4:10 mark.

This moment of Zen is pretty good too.


http://www.hulu.com/watch/127716/th...g-the-bounty-hunter-on-health-care#s-p1-sr-i1

Maybe Dog the Bounty hunter should go to Washington.

Hmhh sounds like a good movie title to me.

Dog the Bounty Hunter goes to Washington that has a nice ring to it.
 
Last edited:

Cobol74

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
17,507
Location
The banana republic of Ukania
Car(s)
Honda Accord 2.2 i-Dtec Sport Estate.Hyundai Ix20

idk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
1,836
Location
SW Germany
Car(s)
Hyundai i30N Performance
Err if you think $50,000 a year is enough to cover just a serious injury or illness let alone a catastrophic one you are seriously, seriously misinformed.

If you get really hurt or really sick figure a minimum of $10,000 a day in a hospital. Those people that don't have coverage are just asking to be put into bankruptcy. Just remember that 75% of the people who did go into bankruptcy because of medical bills had health insurance.

I've been browsing through this thread and I don't get it... how anybody could argue against 'proper' health care.

I'm a person who is generally never sick. Most of the times I don't see a doctor for years... It has been 2 years now since the last time that I needed/wanted a prescription medicine against a fever. But I'm sure I'd have survived without it... only takes a bit longer maybe... It cost (my insurance) maybe 10 bucks. But I wouldn't care to pay for it myself :p


But there is also another story in my personal history

When I was 1 year old I was healthy
When I was 2 years old I was healthy
When I was 3 years old I was healthy
When I was 4 years old I was healthy
When I was 5 years old I was healthy
When I was 6 years old I was healthy
When I was 7 years old I was healthy
When I was 8 years old I was healthy
When I was 9 years old I was healthy
When I was 10 years old I was healthy
When I was 11 years old I was healthy
When I was 12 years old I was healthy
When I was 13 years old I was healthy
When I was 14 years old I was healthy
When I was 15 years and 1 Month years old I got seriously sick.

I spent almost 1.5 years in the hospital :cry: . The treatment cost a lot more than 100.000? :shock:

But well.. I have the "basic/mandatory" health care insurance and it took good care of me. I got the best treatment that was available... without any discussion.

Me or my parents didn't have to spent a dime on it. The only costs they had was a few liters of gas when they came to visit me in the hospital.

Since I finally got out of the hospital at 16,5 years of age I've never been sick (=needing medical attention)



Whats the conclusion of that story?

When you're never sick you can not assume that you're not sick tomorrow but only hope you ain't sick the day after tomorrow
Maybe you get in the unfortunate situation to realize that health is the most important thing in your life.

You only realize it when you're hoping to survive. Trust me, it's not a pleasant feeling.

But I'm proud to live in a system, where rich people don't have a real advantage over 'poor' people when it comes to health.

At certain points in your life you can 'choose' to be rich or poor. But health is destiny. Even crossing the street can destroy your health in an instance.

Obviously too many people don't get that and can not think further than a cough and a sneeze.

I think society has a obligation to heal people when there is a treatment. Society has an obligation to give people their old (pre-sick) life back. That makes us humans better than animals who might even kill a sick member of their group. And giving people their lives back can also not be an issue of some green (in the US) printed slices of paper with a number on it.

When society works together it's a relative small price to pay and in everyones own interest. Every one can hope that health insurance will never pay off for yourself. As a matter of fact thats the best thing that happens in your whole life, that health insurance turns out to be uncalled-for!

I even claim it would be the best if health care was free! I think Dubai has this system.
When you're sick you go to the hospital and they take care of you. The hospital is run by the state. They finance the medical infrastructure from taxes and when you need it, you just take it... like a highway or a bridge.

That's not bad imo, because no money gets lost in the "system". Now the insurance company makes profits out of health care money, the hospitals make profits... etc. That just drains money from the systems that could be used way more reasonable.

The state has police people and police cars, tax authority people and nice buildings that they use, military people and tanks and planes and ships... etc, the state has even gardeners to water the lawn in front of official buildings... but why not doctors and hospitals???

I know that sounds "communist" but at least (and only) concerning health care I have no problem with that.

!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:

teeb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
3,497
Location
Bordeaux, France.
Car(s)
old Saab 9-3 coup?
Not allowed here - goes into massive rant about not being able to see stuff - OK what is your excuse the Americans - we had the music issue - I suspect its because you want to make lots of money out of people.

I'm not sure about Hulu, but there are certainly ways to watch the Daily Show online in the UK.

A quick google provided this method, which is what I use myself.
 

British_Rover

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
4,289
Location
Torrington, CT United States
Car(s)
2005 Gr Cherokee, dealer demo
You're far more interested in being masters of the universe than actually debating the facts. Have at it.

Steve

So that means you give up or what?

What we have now in the US is not working. That is a fact. I don't think a NHS style system is something we should do either so there now we have common ground.

Instead of ignoring good posts that actually provide good data why don't you suggest something? Or are you just going to stand there stamping your feet saying no, no no?

What would you like to see what would work? The answer can't be what we have now because what we have now isn't the standard of the world for regular care. We do have some of the best high tech and cutting edge care in the world but for just basic illness and injury we do not. If I had diabetes or some other kind of chronic illness I would much rather be in Canada or the UK hell even Japan over the US. Germany would be the number one choice of course.

What we have now is killing people and is costing way too much money.

Are you going to respond to that with any actually solutions or take your ball and go home like the part of NO?
 

Pjuske2

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
86
Location
DK
I'm not sure about Hulu, but there are certainly ways to watch the Daily Show online in the UK.

A quick google provided this method, which is what I use myself.

try ninjavideo:cool:
 

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
Congratulations on proving you don't have a legitimate source.
Less than 30 seconds of research would have told you that there wasn't a census taken in 2006 in the US.
Right you are. Those numbers came from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey in '06. Funny, it did take me about 30 seconds to prove that it is a legitimate source.
 

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
Well lawmakers and the White House had their big summit meeting today. And things went about how you would expect; Republicans brought nothing to the table and the Democrats are too (trying to think of a better word than retarded) to just pass legislation using "reconciliation" to bypass the filibuster. They've probably even still got the votes to pass a public option through reconciliation, but no, no they won't do it. Jackasses.
 

wooflepoof

Watermelon Connoisseur
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,047
Location
Texas
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
Well lawmakers and the White House had their big summit meeting today. And things went about how you would expect; Republicans brought nothing to the table and the Democrats are too (trying to think of a better word than retarded) to just pass legislation using "reconciliation" to bypass the filibuster. They've probably even still got the votes to pass a public option through reconciliation, but no, no they won't do it. Jackasses.

God bless America eh
 

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
God bless America eh
:lol: yeah.

Although it does sound like the Democrats, overall, are finally sick of the Republican's bullshit. Even Obama is sounding less interested in bipartisanship. I just wish they were smart enough to realize the Republicans were only interested in obstruction a year ago.
 

Steve Levin

Master of Disaster
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,482
Location
Sunnyvale, California
Car(s)
Spec Racer Ford!
Well lawmakers and the White House had their big summit meeting today. And things went about how you would expect; Republicans brought nothing to the table and the Democrats are too (trying to think of a better word than retarded) to just pass legislation using "reconciliation" to bypass the filibuster. They've probably even still got the votes to pass a public option through reconciliation, but no, no they won't do it. Jackasses.

The reason you've seen little offered by the Republican to the existing proposal is that it is so far off the scale that there's little that can be done with it. On a scale of 1-10 the Democrats started at 11, backed up to 10, and then the President basically said yesterday that he won't even consider 9.5.

Make no bones about it, the total lack of compromise is on the Democratic side. Republicans have made a number of proposals, but since their idea is to, say, start at 5 or 6 on that scale, the Democrats had no interest. I mean, did you listen to the President's closing statements? Talk about "like it or lump it!" He said he "might contemplate" two or three Republican suggestions, but it was pretty clear that it would be a token "contemplation."

And just before you go along party lines, remember that in the House, almost 20% of Democrats voted against the House version of health care. And there are significant indications that the number will rise if presented anew.

When labor, that traditional bastion of the left, says "we'll only go along with this if you write the legislation so that we are left out of it" -- well, that says a LOT.

Steps that need to be taken are simple:

* keep people that have coverage from losing it
* help people with lower incomes pay for coverage
* crush all the administrative overhead of the individual states around differing regulations that while small do nothing but run up overhead and costs.

Start there -- and it's a lot less than 2,700 pages -- see how things go, and tweak as needed.

Steve
 
Top