Does National Heath care work????

[Ashmoria]

I dread to think where my family would be without the NHS - it has saved my mother from cancer twice, me from malaria, treated all kinds of other ongoing conditions including my brother's severe and permanent paranoid schizophrenia. Thanks to the exceptional level of care he has received over the last almost thirty years, he leads a largely independent and very productive life but his story could easily have been very different. I know that we couldn't have afforded even the first round of doctors to get a diagnosis let alone the drugs, psychiatry and community support that have been provided over the years since. The NHS are currently caring for me during my pregnancy and have so far provided a truly awesome amount of information for the first time mother as well as health screening for both me and my developing fetus.

And a private system can't do any of this? If the governments wasn't taking so much of your income througe taxes, you could have afforded it, no doubt.

the private system DOESNT do this. and it has only gotten worse over time. as soon as she was done being treated for malaria, as soon as her mother got done being treated for cancer the first time, and probably never for her brother, the private insurance industry would be done with all of them. they would never get insurance again.

and that is supposing that their insurance wouldnt have weaseled out of treating them for the first serious illness.

[Farnhamia]

anything to back this lot up? and what's so funny about peace of mind?

If you can't pay for your own peace of mind, you don't deserve any. And you certainly don't deserve any paid for by someone else's tax dollars. Basically, if you are incapable of paying for health coverage and services, you are obviously defective and should be removed from the gene pool. [/outrageous yet telling exaggeration of universal health care opponents positions] I think that sums it up pretty well.

Or you could try presenting an argument rather than a thinly-veiled insult.

Why? You didn't present an argument, not one with facts and figures. Oh, but you don't believe those, do you? "In fact economic calculation by a central source is impossible."

Like it or not, taxes are the price you pay for civilization. Deny that all you like, it is nonetheless true.

Oh, and I do apologize for writing "piece" instead of "peace."

[Muravyets]

Eh?

Your argument is that the money that is being spent on healthcare should be spent... on healthcare?

What I am saying is that you are paying over half of your income in some instances to a system that does not make a differentiation between somebody who is young, active, and healthy and thus has low-risk when it comes to healthcare to somebody else who is unhealthy. You are still playing a higher amount because you are also paying for those people whereas in a private system you'd only be paying for your own healthcare based on your own status. That way- you'd be paying less, but you actually have no choice since your taxes is, at least indirectly going to that system.

The bolded is evidence that you don't know what you are talking about. You do not pay according to your status. You pay according to someone else's assessment of your status, which assessments are made without your knowledge, based on criteria which are not revealed to you, many of which have nothing at all to do with you individually, and are subject to change without warning or explanation. What you pay, and even whether you are granted coverage at all, will depend entirely on that secret assessment against which you have no appeal and no recourse.

And those assessments only determine what your premium will be at the opening of your policy. After that, your status will have little or nothing to do with what you pay, as premium increases are automatic at policy renewal, regardless of your status. And the size of such increases are determined by whether you ever made a claim on your policy at all, but not on whether a change in your health or financial status has occurred.

So the assertion that the user of a private health care (read: insurance) system pays according to his own status is simply false.

Now in a tax-funded system, your payment will change with your financial status -- going up when you get richer and going down when you get poorer -- but will not change with your health status, so that healthy or sick, you will always be permitted the same access.

[Bewilder]

Eh?

Your argument is that the money that is being spent on healthcare should be spent... on healthcare?

What I am saying is that you are paying over half of your income in some instances to a system that does not make a differentiation between somebody who is young, active, and healthy and thus has low-risk when it comes to healthcare to somebody else who is unhealthy. You are still playing a higher amount because you are also paying for those people whereas in a private system you'd only be paying for your own healthcare based on your own status. That way- you'd be paying less, but you actually have no choice since your taxes is, at least indirectly going to that system.

It's all clear now! Most British citizens are in the 40% tax bracket and are therefore paying more than 50% of their income to the government who proceed to spend all the money on healthcare and nothing else. I can see why you think we pay too much...

On the other hand, the median salary is more like £20k and the mean salary is around £26k. The first £6.5k of income is tax free and most of us don't pay more than 20% on the remainder which is rather different to the numbers you mentioned. The British government does actually fund a number of things including pensions, education, the military, welfare and transport out of that tax pot as well as the NHS. So "you are paying over half of your income in some instances to a system that does not make a differentiation between somebody who is young, active, and healthy and thus has low-risk when it comes to healthcare to somebody else who is unhealthy." is actually false.

You also haven't explained the "bureaucratic mess" you mentioned or why peace of mind is funny.

[Ashmoria]

Since nationalised healthcare is apparently cheaper as well as easier to access and appears to actually work at treating people who are ill or injured it seems a no-brainer to me, and I'm really lost to understand why anybody wouldn't want it.

I think PeoplesFreedom offers an illustration in answer to that question. Clearly, in order to not want a system that works as well or better for less money, you have to be so fixated on an ideology that has nothing whatsoever to do with any aspect of health care that you simply do not see the reality of the topic you're talking about. That's it. PF encapsulates the entire US anti-NHS position, and we can see clear as day that he/she has not read the thread, has not taken the slightest notice of the counter arguments and evidence against his/her points that have already been posted, and seems to have no intention of doing so. In offline reality, it's the same. Talking about health care reform in the US is like debating with cats and parrots. You can talk all day, and they'll make sounds back at you, but the words that are coming out of your mouth are not entering their heads, and that's all there is to it.

With cats and parrots, it's because they can't understand what you're saying. With the anti-NHS faction, it's because they are not interested in what you're saying. Why aren't they interested? Because you're talking about health care. They're not talking about health care. Nope, not at all. They're talking about an idea they have concerning money. Note: They are not talking about real money, currency, personal or business finance, no, no, no. They are talking about a concept they have about how they think economies should work. Not how they do work, but how these people think they should work. It's a fiction that they, essentially, RP, and they are so caught up in their RP that they are never going to talk OOC or even acknowledge that they are RPing at all.

UNTIL...

...They get cancer.

And then the tune changes.

Because reality beats storybook every time.

yeah, its like the old saw about a conservative being a liberal who got mugged.

a liberal (on health care) is a conservative who got cancer.

[Muravyets]

money and economics only have to do with the real-word on paper, and not in reality. Right?

The way you discuss them, they have nothing to do with the real world at all, on paper or anywhere else.

[Grave_n_idle]

Please U.K. and Canadian tell us the truth!

This is a foolish way to determine if the system works.

Not really. There's little dispute in terms of statistics. The US model fares rather badly in terms of healthcare provided, on most metrics, it fails to cover everyone, and it it is more expwensive (per capita) than it's competitors.

So, what else is there? Anecdotal evidence is one other option. ANd that's what we're seeing here.

It's just another brick in the 'liberal bias of reality' wall that the anecdotal evidence supports what we've been seeing in the numbers.

[Grave_n_idle]

Its an example. It doesn't really matter where exactly your taxes is going in the grand scheme of things, because it still factors into the 'calculation' of how much everybody pays. and it doesn't change the fact that you're still loosing money to taxes.

In fact economic calculation by a central source is impossible.

So:

You failed to present any sources of your own...

ANd when sources were provided that show your claims are ridiculously untrue... you complain that it doesn't matter, because there's no way to calculate the figures?




Isn't that an admission that your OWN figures must be bullshit?

[Fighter4u]

Well National health Care does indeed work. But everyone missing one thing. National health care relys on it nurses and doctors to a insane degree.

No shit?

Why can't it be like other models, that don't need doctors and nurses?

Why not learn to read and not pick things out of context? Then you can come back and play with the big boys and girls.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well National health Care does indeed work. But everyone missing one thing. National health care relys on it nurses and doctors to a insane degree.

No shit?

Why can't it be like other models, that don't need doctors and nurses?

Why not learn to read and not pick things out of context? Then you can come back and play with the big boys and girls.

Lern2sarcazm.

[Fighter4u]

No shit?

Why can't it be like other models, that don't need doctors and nurses?

Why not learn to read and not pick things out of context? Then you can come back and play with the big boys and girls.

Lern2sarcazm.

Sorry, I'm tired.

[Grave_n_idle]

Lern2sarcazm.

Sorry, I'm tired.

Ugh. You made me meme myself. I feel so dirty.

[Bewilder]

the private system DOESNT do this. and it has only gotten worse over time. as soon as she was done being treated for malaria, as soon as her mother got done being treated for cancer the first time, and probably never for her brother, the private insurance industry would be done with all of them. they would never get insurance again.

and that is supposing that their insurance wouldnt have weaseled out of treating them for the first serious illness.

This.

Its worth noting that at the time I contracted malaria, I had private healthcare through my employment. The friend who had travelled with me and who was looking after me whilst I was semi-delirious took me to the private doctor first, whose reaction was "you have something horrible that you picked up in Africa, I can't do anything, go to the Hospital for Tropical Diseases", which is an NHS hospital. Upon my arrival there, I was tested, admitted and treated immediately. Incidentally, I was taxed on the so-called benefit of my private medical insurance even though I had to use the NHS for treatment.

[Ashmoria]

the private system DOESNT do this. and it has only gotten worse over time. as soon as she was done being treated for malaria, as soon as her mother got done being treated for cancer the first time, and probably never for her brother, the private insurance industry would be done with all of them. they would never get insurance again.

and that is supposing that their insurance wouldnt have weaseled out of treating them for the first serious illness.

This.

Its worth noting that at the time I contracted malaria, I had private healthcare through my employment. The friend who had travelled with me and who was looking after me whilst I was semi-delirious took me to the private doctor first, whose reaction was "you have something horrible that you picked up in Africa, I can't do anything, go to the Hospital for Tropical Diseases", which is an NHS hospital. Upon my arrival there, I was tested, admitted and treated immediately. Incidentally, I was taxed on the so-called benefit of my private medical insurance even though I had to use the NHS for treatment.

malaria is a nasty disease eh?

it almost killed my father in ww2 and he suffered some effects from it for the rest of his life--another 50+ years.

[ERNESTLAND]

Are there still any doctors that might do it for the good of society, and not for the big house??

Who said anything about the "good of society"? Not me, certainly. I think that's a false dichotomy. It's not just a choice between "the big house" or altruism for nothing. I am saying that doctors in both countries maintain a comparable lifestyle, adjusted for their nations and cultures. Both are solidly, in general, upper-middle to upper class, economically, and that the assertion that doctors cannot make a good living under a nationalized system is false because doctors in such systems typically make the kinds of livings that will land them in that bracket, whatever that requires in their countries.

People who argue "Oh, but a UK doctor can only get a 2400 s.f. house instead of a 4800 s.f. house so they're not as well off" are applying a false standard, because in the UK, such large houses are not as common as they are in the US, so a doctor is less likely even to want one if he/she could afford it. No one in the UK is going to think he is suffering financially just because his house is only 2400 s.f. In the UK, that's a nice big house. Just like the successful doctor in Manhattan is more likely to be satisfied with a teensy little apartment, so long as it's in the right neighborhood and he/she likes gerbils as pets. But even if the doctor is playing twister with himself in a 2-room studio the size of a walk-in closet, if it's in the right neighborhood, nobody is going to say, "Oh, he must be poor."

And here in Boston, the desirability of the dwelling is not determined by square footage, but by whatever extras the buyer is looking for. If you want luxurious amenities, you can buy one of the hugely expensive new condo developments and get maybe up to 1000 s.f. or as little as 400 s.f. and a bunch of services. Or if you want classic Boston Brahmin ambience, you can get a 450 s.f. bolthole in the Back Bay or on Beacon Hill with no amenities but great woodwork and plenty of attitude, for the same outrageous price.

In real estate, if not men, size really doesn't matter in determining how well it will do as a status symbol of success.

Likewise the salary to salary comparison between privatized medicine US doctors and nationalized medicine UK doctors is misleading because a simple comparison does not take into account their respective expenses associated with their professions. As Ashmoria suggested earlier, the US doctor carries so much more of a financial burden that that average $125K salary is already reduced effectively to be more even with the UK doctor's average 65K of whatever they call their currency these days (I can never remember how to type the symbol).

question no reflection of what you said! just wanted to throw it out there!

[Bewilder]

malaria is a nasty disease eh?

it almost killed my father in ww2 and he suffered some effects from it for the rest of his life--another 50+ years.

It is very nasty, and very debilitating - I'm sorry to hear your father suffered so much from it. I had falciparum malaria, affecting my brain, liver and other internal organs, and with a very short incubation period. I'm very grateful that I was treated so effectively, so quickly and seem to have made a complete recovery. Falciparum malaria can be fatal within a few hours of the first symptoms - at least the private doctor didn't waste any time in pointing me to good treatment on the NHS.

[Muravyets]

question no reflection of what you said! just wanted to throw it out there!

Okey-dokey, but I still say it creates a false dichotomy.

[Dazchan]

Australia here.

I've been the emergency once. It was an all-day thing, but there was a genuine emergency at the same time, and in the five hours I was there I did see two doctors (twice each) and get an x-ray done. Saw triage within twenty minutes of arriving. No complaints.

Walk-in clinics: I can generally see a doctor within half an hour without an appointment. Following initial consult I have had minor surgery, x-rays, etc immediately. No complaints there.

Local GP: Appointment only, within a day.

Pharmacy: Cheap . Very cheap. Low-income earners get prescriptions for $3.20. I pay more, but still heavily subsidised. You can afford to have a long-term illness AND eat in Australia.

The cost: A slight (very slight) increase in tax. I think I worked out last time I crunched the numbers that I would get to keep an extra 3% of my income in the US, but would pay much, much more than that in medical expenses.

[Waterlow]

In regards to income tax, the British government currently takes 40% for a 37,000 income or more. 37,000 or less is still a 20% tax rate. Add in the VAT Tax and numerous other taxes and its not imporable for half of your annual income to be going to the the government if you're in the higher income brackets. Even in the smaller brackets, you're still paying a large percentage which could be spent on other things including healthcare.

Point of order. For 2009/10:

first £6,475 taxed at 0%
next £37,400 taxed at 20%

The 40% rate is applied to earnings over £43,875, not £37,000. This makes a big difference to a lot of people!

[Pure Metal]

What I am saying is that you are paying over half of your income in some instances to a system that does not make a differentiation between somebody who is young, active, and healthy and thus has low-risk when it comes to healthcare to somebody else who is unhealthy. You are still playing a higher amount because you are also paying for those people whereas in a private system you'd only be paying for your own healthcare based on your own status. That way- you'd be paying less, but you actually have no choice since your taxes is, at least indirectly going to that system.

i'm paying about 20% - not that many pay half their income as that's the Higher Rate for those earning about £40k, which would mean you'd be in the top 10% of earners in the country, according to this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8151355.stm

but anyway, a lot of people in this country don't mind "paying for other people's healthcare", even if it means paying a bit more yourself or having little choice, because it is seen as the decent (and dare i say, moral) thing to do. its better to have society pool together to look after people who really need help and healthcare than have these people suffer because they might not be able to afford the care they need, even if the concequences are paying more yourself than you might otherwise, or other considerations, like lack of competition*, etc.

*though it has been shown on this forum, time and again, that the US private system costs people more than our "inefficient" and bureaucratic nationalised system.

I dread to think where my family would be without the NHS - it has saved my mother from cancer twice, me from malaria, treated all kinds of other ongoing conditions including my brother's severe and permanent paranoid schizophrenia. Thanks to the exceptional level of care he has received over the last almost thirty years, he leads a largely independent and very productive life but his story could easily have been very different. I know that we couldn't have afforded even the first round of doctors to get a diagnosis let alone the drugs, psychiatry and community support that have been provided over the years since. The NHS are currently caring for me during my pregnancy and have so far provided a truly awesome amount of information for the first time mother as well as health screening for both me and my developing fetus.

And a private system can't do any of this? If the governments wasn't taking so much of your income througe taxes, you could have afforded it, no doubt.

i doubt it. i'd love to see how much healthcare i could get in the US for my monthly income tax of about $70US

and that assumes the insurance actually pays for everything, when it doesn't (deductibles, insurance not covering parts of treatment, etc)

Yes but when your economy falls your healthcare falls with it and hard. I would a choice of what healthcare I can get and be able to switch to privite when the economy falls.

in the UK, you can. you can go private if you want.

It doesn't matter much how much better it is(Which I personally think it is). The fact is that Healthcare is a major part of the US economy right now, if we switched over the NHS then a gaping hole would be left in the economy. If we ever decide to switch into NHS, then it should be done when our economy is doing great...not now.

That seems to be missing a rather glaring point - if the healthservice is doing just peachy in an economic downturn of this magnitude - then everyone else must be getting screwed.

What we need in this economy, is small businesses, new start-ups, increasing employment - all the things that the high cost of healthcare is KILLING OUT.

This would be a great time to fix the health economy. It might even put us on the road to recovery by itself.

don't also forget that Government spending is a component of aggregate demand, so the money spent by the private healthcare sector wouldn't exactly vanish if you went for a public sector solution

The bureaucratic mess created by a nationalized system is much worse. Your 'peace of mind' argument is also rather funny.

really? while there's obviously bureaucracy inside the NHS, there really isn't for patients. you pay your taxes as usual, you go along to the hospital or GP's surgery when you need help, you get seen to and go home. no paperwork, no bureaucracy, nothing to sign (apart from when you get a prescription), no 'government officials' to see or anyone reviewing your case.

frankly it seems there's a lot more bureaucracy in the US system, with signing up to one of many insurance packages, calling your HMO for approval of procedures and to check you're covered, arguing with them when they say you're not, paperwork at the hospital regarding your insurance, etc...

[PartyPeoples]

--SNIPPED--
Yummy, eloquent counter points!

Can I, like... buy you a coffee... or something?


On-topic:
I love the fact that I pay a portion of my taxes to ensure the running and maintenance of UK NHS hospitals as well as being guaranteed access to treatment whenever I might need it. I have no doubt that many members of my family and friends would have died from treatable conditions a long, long time ago under the US private-'healthcare' system.

Quite why the anti-NHS crowd take offence at helping other people stay alive is a little beyond me tbh!..

[Muravyets]

--SNIPPED--
Yummy, eloquent counter points!

Can I, like... buy you a coffee... or something?


On-topic:
I love the fact that I pay a portion of my taxes to ensure the running and maintenance of UK NHS hospitals as well as being guaranteed access to treatment whenever I might need it. I have no doubt that many members of my family and friends would have died from treatable conditions a long, long time ago under the US private-'healthcare' system.

Quite why the anti-NHS crowd take offence at helping other people stay alive is a little beyond me tbh!..

I said a long time ago - and I'm not sure which US health care thread I said it in - that these arguments tend to disappear as soon as the people making them get hit with a serious medical condition of their own. Make of that what you will.

[Pure Metal]

--SNIPPED--
Yummy, eloquent counter points!

Can I, like... buy you a coffee... or something?

lol, you can buy me a pint if you want

Quite why the anti-NHS crowd take offence at helping other people stay alive is a little beyond me tbh!..

and me

[Pure Metal]

bwuhahahaha, i killed the thread!
i'm good at doing that

[Eofaerwic]

bwuhahahaha, i killed the thread!
i'm good at doing that

You evil Thread Killer you!

I do it a lot too. We should have a club - the Thread Killer Club - we can have a secret handshake and everything.