Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: "Sicko"
I hope I’m not too off topic bringing this up here, but I just saw the movie “Sicko” and I knew there were a lot of Europeans and such on this forum, and it has definitely got me thinking. So I thought I’d ask.
How is nationalized healthcare? Really?
Do you like it? Is service good? Is it worth it? Any horror stories? Is it complete bullocks? (he he) Is it great? And a great relief of stress?
For me it seems there is no other option for a “1st” world country, especially one like America (with so much money). I know there are a lot of politics involved, and I don’t really want to get into a debate, but I just think “human life before profits”
So anyways, what do you think of it? Do you think Americas system is better? Do you think our care is better?
My wife is a nurse and she’s all for socialization of health care.
No idea about any other systems, but our system (the UK National Health Service) works... ish. I'm very grateful to be able to get free healthcare, it's a really great aspect of this country BUT going privately is worth the extra cash spent. My mother a few years back broke her leg and it took almost THREE WEEKS for the NHS to get around to doing anything but giving her a tubigrip bandage and telling her to stay off it for the time being. This was reaching the point of almost needing to rebreak and set the leg, luckily that scenario didn't play out. Again, someone I know has been fighting off cancer for the past few years and has been through a heck of a lot of trauma that would NOT have been necessary had action been taken sooner to treat the cancer, which was made worse by the NHS waiting times.
In a nutshell, it's a great concept and works more than it doesn't but there are situations where the quality of service and expediance just don't cut it.
Generally, i seem to find it ok. There have been alot of horror stories about the NHS, some being quite disgusting in nature. However, i find it to be alright. Seeing as i'm diabetic, i get all my prescriptions for free from the NHS, whereas if i had to buy my needles, they would be £10 for a box of 100. Trust me, a box of 100 needles doesn't go far.
I can understand alot of the horror stories and sympathise with the victims involved, but i'm happy to say that my experiences have been pretty ok with them, and am glad for it. _________________ "He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him a spinal cord would fully suffice." - Albert Einstein
Generally, i seem to find it ok. There have been alot of horror stories about the NHS, some being quite disgusting in nature. However, i find it to be alright. Seeing as i'm diabetic, i get all my prescriptions for free from the NHS, whereas if i had to buy my needles, they would be £10 for a box of 100. Trust me, a box of 100 needles doesn't go far.
This is a perfect example of why the NHS is a great thing. People who have long-term, even life long conditions such as diabetes would have to spend a FORTUNE - I would not be surprised if it came to half of the money they ever earn, but I don't know this at all - and they benefit greatly from this existence of such a system. However, it still isn't perfect and there is a way to go. The fact that the NHS all but denies any merit or truth in Eastern medicine still astounds me as there is so much evidence to the contrary. I'm nowhere near read up enough on the subject to give a real critique, but again I'd have to conclude that the CONCEPT is brilliant but there is a way to go in regards to perfect the whole idea. Having lived in a country where the health system is "free", I find the idea of having to pay for every little thing somewhat perverse - this is me coming from a point ignorance though. I know that doctors have to get paid, nurses have to get paid, and that medicines and medical equipment costs money, but still... I suppose that those of us who can get help for nothing, regardless of the flaws, should be grateful. There are millions out there who get nothing for nothing, and that's not fair either. It's all bloody messed up if you ask me.
Not really trying to stir anything up, but I did want to reflect on a few key points. My intent is really to raise questions to think about rather than open up a can of words. However, I will chime in a few thoughts at the end. But I really hope this doesn't explode into some heated name-calling thread that reaches 4 digits of posts.
First, under the socialized model, there are many known cases of having to wait for extended periods of time for procedures even for things such as bypass surgery.
Second, there is the larger question of whether health care is a right or a privilege. Let me clarify. It is not so much a question of whether an individual has the right to well-being, but the means for providing that well-being.
Third, perhaps the biggest question is exactly what the role of government should be. Like I said, I'm not trying to start a debate, but just raise the questions to think about away from the forum. The question of government's role is a question of whether each person ought to be seen as sovereign or if people are mere entities under the umbrella of government.
Fourth, and related to the second and third, is the question of whose responsibility it should be to provide health care. Should the goal of society be to have individuals move toward being independent, free, and responsible, or should government always provide a crutch for man to exist?
Fifth, there is a definite danger under a socialized model of passing laws that restrict the services of the private sector when it shows competition with the official government service. By its inherent nature, government operates by force. But should this be an area where force is applied, or should the individual be able to choose for himself?
Okay, here's where I'll inject my 2 cents: There are certainly a good number of people without health care. However, at the end of the day I believe it is a matter of priorities. If it comes down to paying for insurance or having a cell phone and cable TV, and a person choses the latter, it is hard to sympathize and see health care as a 'need' for those individuals. In flourishing countries such as the US and England, it comes to taking advantage of opportunities and bettering oneself. Books are a free education, and I know of many who have chosen self-education over a formal higher education and have landed very well paying careers. As a result, they have health care. Perhaps rather than 'nationalizing' health care, the effort should be put into the projects and lower income communities to encourage and teach the kids to not following in the same footsteps as the past three or four generations of the cycle that their family has followed.
So, at the end of the day I think it is a question of the individual's responsibility to provide for himself, and a question of what kind of priority that is when a person comes to make that choice. To remove that responsibility by providing a crutch is more of a band-aid than a solution.
Health care in the UK is not 'free' it is being paid for by every working persons taxes. It is open to massive abuse from migrants who haven't contributed a penny towards it and is run very very poorly. I have personal experience of how crap it is and don't really want to spend half an hour clogging up a decent forum page with my complaints. Don't really know how it works in the US but if it's case of having to take insurance out then I'd do it without complaint, at least that way I'm only paying for my own health care. This may seem simplistic and a bit naive as I don't have a full understanding of other countries systems, but that's how I see it. Why should anyone get something for free when others are having to pay for it.
Health care in the UK is not 'free' it is being paid for by every working persons taxes.
Ah, I knew there was something I forgot. Perhaps the most important element! Thanks!
I think it would be interesting for government to try to sell socialized health care under a reformed tax system where the only tax was a single flat consumption tax (no income tax, hidden taxes, etc). There would be no way to pitch it as 'free' at that point because the tax code would be 100% transparent and out in the open. But with a million different places where people are taxed, a government can push a system like socialized health care and make the people think it is free, all while nickel-and-diming people to death by spreading out tax increase to places where people are less aware.
I'm so glad Michael Moore decided to tell us the whole story (*sarcasm*)
I've heard there are some horror story NHS things, but at the same time how many of us have horror stories in the US, with insurance. For example just the other day a friend of ours got an terrible fever couldn't see straight etc... Not doing well at all. So my wife took her to the hospital, (she has great insurance) and waited and waited, and was never seen, they were there nearly 8 hours, and nothing, she could have died in that time (theoretically) it was such a waste.
Then as far as helping the lower class in America, what about the middle class as well. My sister, for example, had straight A's all through high school and college, still didn't get much in scholarships, etc... anyways she has 2 majors and a minor, and her job doesn't offer health care, she has arthritis and is a girl. She can't even get health care from anyone, they don't want to do it. Without paying an arm and a leg, now she's been basically forced to moving in with my parents because of the situation she's in. She is back in grad school (with more loans) and working full time, just to get a job as a teacher where the benefits are good.
I'm not sure this is about priority, whether she has a cell phone or cable, this is a matter of it not being offered.
I realize there are a lot of problems with socialized healthcare, and the main question is "Should the government have that power?" Well I guess to me would you rather have a "profits" seeking company decide on your fate? Or a govt. that at least you elected, and there is some chance they are afraid of you, to do the right thing.
I'm sorry I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, just trying to throw in my 2 cents.
I feel like there is enough money out there where this shouldn't be a problem, and it's too bad if the insurance companies, or the government finds in their best interest to nickel and dime their people/customers.
Joined: 22 Sep 2004 Posts: 122 Location: chair, in front of desk
Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: Re: "Sicko"
Mirth wrote:
How is nationalized healthcare? Really?
Do you like it? Is service good? Is it worth it? Any horror stories? Is it complete bullocks? (he he) Is it great? And a great relief of stress?
As a concept, wonderful. In practice... well, it usually works
You'll find plenty of horror stories relating to the British NHS, but I'd wager that most of them are down to the simple matter of underfunding. Or, more specifically, wrong funding. The last Tory government made several "improvements" to the NHS, most of which involved inserting extra levels of administrative bureaucracy, diverting vast chunks of *our* money to overpaid pen-pushers.
The current Labour (aka Tory) government have, as far as I can tell, done nothing to reverse the bureaucracy, although I understand waiting lists for serious operations have been shortened considerably. It's also a whole lot easier to get a quick appointment at your local health centre than it was 10 years ago. In all my dealings with the NHS, I've been treated very well, but you often have to wait a while if it's non-serious.
Basically, it's the same old story. We had a state railway system which needed some TLC, but instead of finding the cash, they sold it to private enterprise, who have abused their position and killed quite a few people through neglect. We had a state postal service which was the envy of the world, but a half-arsed attempt at privatisation (and more overpaid bureaucrats) has reduced it to a complete shambles. And then there's the NHS... staffed by a huge number of dedicated, skilled and warm-hearted people, but crippled by bureaucracy and underfunding.
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:25 am Post subject: Re: "Sicko"
adrianclark wrote:
although I understand waiting lists for serious operations have been shortened considerably.
I understand that the lists were halved... by using the amazing medical procedure of having two lists (one to wait to get onto a waiting list) and noone waits for a long time because at some stage they get a note saying their operation has been canceled, by accident and will need t be re-scheduled. This time after cancellation until an appointment is rebooked is not classed as waiting, as you've already got an appointment. _________________ Fabulous powers were revealed to me the day I held my magic Suhr(d) aloft and said "by the power of great scale!"
Wow that's nuts Frankus. It seems to me that it would work fine, if people weren't greedy. Meaning, it sounds like beaurocrats etc... are getting the money, where it should be put into the system.
My wife and I currently pay around 7 grand for insurance, plus another 2 or 3 grand for social security and medicare (which we don't get, since we're only 26 years old). Do you think we would be paying more in taxes to cover socialized healthcare? This isn't even counting co-pays. So in a year we spend well over 10,000 dollars on private healthcare in america. I know my parents pay about twice that.
Would we really be taxed more than that? I hardly doubt it. Do you have any clue what percentage of your salary does go to health care(through taxes)? (those in socialized systems)
Joined: 22 Sep 2004 Posts: 122 Location: chair, in front of desk
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:25 am Post subject:
Mirth wrote:
So in a year we spend well over 10,000 dollars on private healthcare in america. I know my parents pay about twice that.
I've no idea how much the average British person pays the NHS in tax contributions. You can get a very rough guide from the fact that our GDP per capita is about 32,000 USD, and healthcare spending is about 8.5% of GDP. However, that doesn't account for how much of our money is wasted before it even gets to the NHS
The main difference, I guess, is that there's no minimum entry requirement in our system. A person with no earnings, who relies on social security benefits, is guaranteed exactly the same healthcare as a person who earns 200k per year, or whatever (although the richer person has the option of private healthcare too).
Well, I've seen sicko, but free healthcare doesn't exist in The Netherlands. I dont' think it's 'free' anywhere in Europe, so I doubt if Moore's info is really correct.
As a matter of fact, a good healthcare package is quite expensive but it is illegal not to have healthcare in The Netherlands.
Also:
Before 2006, a complete healcare package was about 50 euros with the most known healthcare provider (or however you call that in englisch). For the same package in januari 2007, the price was doubled. The most simplistic healthcare package is about 80 euros, without dental. With dental, with the more cheaper providers, it's almost 90 euros. You pay this every month.
Most people probably pay around a minimum of 100 euros every month for healthcare, wich isn't peanuts.
If your income is lower then a certain amount of money, you can get a compensation from the tax-company here.
But free healthcare in Europe?? Certainly not in my country. I wish it was true... not that I normally need healthcare, but it would save me a lot of money every year. If it wasn't illegal not to have it, I wouldn't have it.
But when you do have healthcare, you WILL be helped by a doctor.
I don't anyone thinks it's "free" but it could be a lot cheaper. There is a bill currently gaining steam called H.R. 676 which is a national healthcare plan, called a single payer health care system. Basically it turns the govt. into an insurance company, but more importantly a non-profit insurance company. Insurance companies in the US tripled their profits in the last 5 years. That's ridiculous. Those bastards! Who else tripled their profits in the last 5 years?? Not me, that's for sure.
Anyways, with the system you will pay about 5% total household income, which is substatinally less then what we pay now. And there will be no co-pays, etc..., but how??? Will care be ruined, etc...?
No it shouldn't, unless the govt. get's out of hand. Why won't it? Because they will free up something like 320 billion dollars a year of profits, that will go back into the system.
Anyways, look it up if you like, it looks pretty good, there is a lot of info out there about it. It's not socialistic, because hospitals will still be private, etc..
I'm all for it, I really believe healthcare is a right, not a priveledege, especially in the supposed "greatest, wealthiest" country. Ugh.
I think in my country, healthcare should be like the car insurance system. If you don't have accidents with your car, you pay less money for insurance. Likewise, if you never go to a doctor and never use any medication (like me), you should pay less for healthcare.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
