Americans put the boot into the NHS - Page 12

#**221** 14.08.2009, 10:18

	Quote:	MikeB
	Im a bit confused now. Let's say a poor person can after all just afford the 100 dollars a month for their health insurance. Then they need hospital care. Where are they going to get the extra 1500 dollars from ? Perhaps I am being simple but I would say that they wouldn't have it ? Could someone enlighten me as to how much per month a US policy is which has no deductible please ?

Yep, that's a good bet. Generally, they go into the hospital for something necessary, and the hospital writes off the copay or negotiates with the patient or patient's family. Because there is no preventative option, the person is usually sicker when he or she seeks care. And of course costs more in the long run.

I really can't quote you a price. My last job in the US, I was lucky enough to have my employer pay for my insurance. Me and 500,000 state employees. Big risk group. For people who had to insure their family members, it was on the order of about $300-400 a month plus a $350 deductible.

My guess would be $500 or more a month, it does depend on age, locality, coverage etc.

Mikers · #**222** 14.08.2009, 10:30

	Quote:	HollidayG
	1. Work out a payment plan. Most hospitals are amenable to this. 2. Virtually all private insurance has some form of deductible just like here in Switzerland.

Just as an aside point, I don't like the Swiss system either - miles ago at the start of this thread I asked what would happen if you were unemployed in Switzerland and so couldn't afford health insurance and the replies did show there was some care but its things like asking your canton if they will pay and stuff, so its only going to cover ER like care. It seems even here in Switzerland it is still a sort of 'ok if your rich, but otherwise your pretty much stuffed' even though the system has a sensible approach of making basic insurance mandatory in that the companies can't turn you down for it and there is no excess - a bit more balanced.

If you ask me, what all this comes down to is greed. The US guys are bashing the NHS because if this plan comes into play then the Healthcare paying public will have the horrifying idea that some of their money is being given to other people.

In Britain we subscribe to this fact and know that even if your not having your teeth polished every 2 weeks, we care for everyone and I for one think that is something that you cannot match with Private insurance.

#**223** 14.08.2009, 10:36

	Quote:	MikeB
	Just as an aside point, I don't like the Swiss system either - miles ago at the start of this thread I asked what would happen if you were unemployed in Switzerland and so couldn't afford health insurance and the replies did show there was some care but its things like asking your canton if they will pay and stuff, so its only going to cover ER like care. It seems even here in Switzerland it is still a sort of 'ok if your rich, but otherwise your pretty much stuffed' even though the system has a sensible approach of making basic insurance mandatory in that the companies can't turn you down for it and there is no excess - a bit more balanced. If you ask me, what all this comes down to is greed. The US guys are bashing the NHS because if this plan comes into play then the Healthcare paying public will have the horrifying idea that some of their money is being given to other people. In Britain we subscribe to this fact and know that even if your not having your teeth polished every 2 weeks, we care for everyone and I for one think that is something that you cannot match with Private insurance.

In the US you pay for other people too - no one will admit it. But if you're insured, risk is spread throughout the population. And you do pay for medicare (over 65 or 62) and medicaid (some people without insurance) through tax dollars.

Also, states give hospitals some money to pay for the under or uninsured. In fact, if you don't provide enough care to the under or uninsured, you get less money. Of course now, given the condition of state finances these allotments are decreasing anyway.

Peg A · #**224** 14.08.2009, 11:07

	Quote:	Morgannon
	Hoppy, you made a series of very bad decisions. I'm sorry, but you should have stayed on top of your health issues. It was your decision to not follow up on your symptoms. And I can understand women being hesitant to have a male gyne, but it wasn't at all necessary to have the same PA perform the test. You could have requested the gyne's partner perhaps? Or perhaps change your appointment day? Did you family physician talk to your gyne about the E Coli infection? Such things don't just arise out of thin air, and there is almost always some sort of underlying cause for such an infection. What did your FP do to diagnose the underlying condition? If your FP had told your gyne to do a cat scan, I'm sure the gyne would have done it - especially, if as you are continually pointing out, the test is expensive and would deliver profit to the gyne if she had done it. You do see the irony there I hope? There is no also way of knowing that a male gyne would have made a different diagnosis than the female gyne. Morg

How DARE you sir make such a comment?

Obviously you have no idea how women are treated by doctors - even female doctors who are supposed to be aiding them with "female" problems - and basically tell Hoppy that it is her own fault?

Women's problems have historically been downplayed quite a bit by doctors, my mother is currently struggling with several severe issues (both "female" type problems AND gastro-intestinal problems) because her doctors never truly listened to her complaints, brushing them off as histrionics and "bored housewife syndrome" for many years.

outrage · #**225** 14.08.2009, 12:28

It's a bit of a cheap shot, using the NHS to attack Obama. I mean, nobody of any note in British public life is looking for an overhaul of public healthcare in the UK, despite the grumbles, but everyone knows the system in the USA has got to change. Having lived in the UK, USA and Switzerland I got better healthcare in the UK than the USA, but the Swiss system trumps them both.

#**226** 14.08.2009, 14:54

	Quote:	outrage
	It's a bit of a cheap shot, using the NHS to attack Obama. I mean, nobody of any note in British public life is looking for an overhaul of public healthcare in the UK, despite the grumbles, but everyone knows the system in the USA has got to change. Having lived in the UK, USA and Switzerland I got better healthcare in the UK than the USA, but the Swiss system trumps them both.

The Swiss system was the best for me, although it was the most expensive. Well, that was until someoneon the forum burst my bubble and informed me that Swiss healthcare does not cover everyone.

Even so, Swissinfo are saying that the US is looking at the Swiss system with a view to having something similar in the US.

So If I was to rank them I would say British=best, then Swiss then US.

Blonaybear · #**227** 14.08.2009, 15:00

	Quote:	hoppy
	The Swiss system was the best for me, although it was the most expensive. Well, that was until someoneon the forum burst my bubble and informed me that Swiss healthcare does not cover everyone.

But it does cover everyone. See the government website.

NickH · #**228** 14.08.2009, 15:16

While living in Thailand I met a few Medical tourists from the States. It was cheaper for them to pay for a business class flight to Bangkok and the cost of private medical (which is very good) compared to the premium they would have to pay on their personal insurance.

Plus they get to recover on the beach.

#**229** 14.08.2009, 15:18

	Quote:
	Unless you go into the hospital raving and drooling, it's hard to say. Your best shot would be likely in jail. Several years ago, in New York a young man named Andrew Goldstein pushed a young woman to her death in front of an oncoming subway. Andrew Goldstein was schizophrenic, and had fallen through the cracks. He had recently gone to an emergency room complaining of symptoms, but because he was't displaying outward physical symptoms, they sent him home with a phone number to call. A person with schizophrenia is not always drooling and shaking. Also, no one checked to see if he had a phone or was capable of making a call, or if he knew how to take his meds. So he stayed off his meds, no one treated him, and he pushed this young woman to her death. As a consequence of Kendra Webdale's death, her family encouraged passage of Kendra's law, requiring people with mental illnesses who are noncompliant to be instituionalized and made to take their medication. Andrew Goldstein would have taken his meds, if he had someone to check up on him. So the point of Kendra's law really solved nothing. I haven't been following it of late, but it was always going to be a nightmare. Andrew Goldstein had a family, but like many people with schizophrenia, he was estranged from them. Psychoses are difficult to treat, and in New York at the time, the mental health system had just experienced huge cuts in support services - case workers who follow up on patients. The de-instutionalization that's gone on since the 1970s has put people on the streets who are unable to care for themselves. And they don't have to be locked up - but they need support and they need to have something to do. Sometimes families really can't provide these services, either.

If youare lucky enough to live near hospitals like this samaritan hospitlathen you may get help, but it isn't garuanteed:

http://www.nehealth.com/pdfs/pcn/Fin...pplication.pdf

Also, there is the price of meds. Many people try to save costs by halfing or even quartering the dose- whichof course just doesn't work most of the time.

More and more I find that these services are becoming overburdened.
I had enrolled my daughter for AP courses at the school vis a vis the hospital, two days ago a man shot himself outside the hospital. There is a real danger that such incidents will increase.

he was a 22 year-old RPI student. RPI is an excellent engineering university, he shot himself right outside emergency. Here is a comment from one person:

	Quote:
	I think it was an RPI student based on the age, location, and the fact that Mark Smith, Dean of Students is in one of the pictures with detectives. Probably a kid who just graduated and could not find work, ala the front story of The Record today, right? Creepy. Sad. Thoughts and Prayers to his family

He shoud have had student insurance, but that only coveres basics and if he has graduaed then it has run out. The youth or young are the fastest growing group of uninsured.

#**230** 14.08.2009, 15:40

	Quote:	hoppy
	So If I was to rank them I would say British=best, then Swiss then US.

I heard yesterday that the British health system is now in some way capped. Once you have had x amount spent on you a year you don't get any more.

I know someone who is sufferring from cancer and she has been refused the latest treatment, which can stop it getting worse because it is too expensive and she has already had a lot spent on her.

I'm not sure if that would happen here.

Morgannon · #**231** 14.08.2009, 15:42

	Quote:	Peg A
	How DARE you sir make such a comment? Obviously you have no idea how women are treated by doctors - even female doctors who are supposed to be aiding them with "female" problems - and basically tell Hoppy that it is her own fault? Women's problems have historically been downplayed quite a bit by doctors, my mother is currently struggling with several severe issues (both "female" type problems AND gastro-intestinal problems) because her doctors never truly listened to her complaints, brushing them off as histrionics and "bored housewife syndrome" for many years.

Obviously, I do have an idea how women are treated by doctors, since my wife is 1) female and 2) a doctor.

And the doctor in this scenario who was ignoring Hoppy's desire to have a CAT scan was FEMALE (her gyne). Also, the PA who "dissed" her was FEMALE. The MALE doctor, her GP, seems to be the only one who was fully supportive of her. If you use Hoppy's case as an example, it seems that male doctors are caring and supportive of women's issues, and women doctors could give a toss.

Sorry to sound insensitive, but it is Hoppy's fault. She was having horrible pains for days it sounds like, yet she didn't go back to the doctor, or even go to the hospital.

First she blames the doctor, then the PA, for her problems, and considers a lawsuit. It's rightly rejected by the lawyers (her friends!) because she has no grounds to sue because the blame falls squarely on her shoulders for not listening to her own symptoms.

That's the last I'll comment on Hoppy's case. If you want to start an "I dare you sir contest", take it to PMs. I'm not wanting to bash her personally, I'm just pointing out the flaws in her reasoning and illustrating how people in the USA tend to blame doctors for not holding their hands from cradle to grave when they need to be responsible participants in their own health care.

Morg

Morgannon · #**232** 14.08.2009, 15:44

	Quote:	Zurichowl
	I heard yesterday that the British health system is now in some way capped. Once you have had x amount spent on you a year you don't get any more. I know someone who is sufferring from cancer and she has been refused the latest treatment, which can stop it getting worse because it is too expensive and she has already had a lot spent on her. I'm not sure if that would happen here.

This is exactly why so many Americans don't want health care reform. There are so many incentives to deny expensive care in a socialized system. At least our system gives you a chance to get that expensive private care.

Morg

Morgannon · #**233** 14.08.2009, 15:48

	Quote:
	In the US you pay for other people too - no one will admit it. But if you're insured, risk is spread throughout the population. And you do pay for medicare (over 65 or 62) and medicaid (some people without insurance) through tax dollars. Also, states give hospitals some money to pay for the under or uninsured. In fact, if you don't provide enough care to the under or uninsured, you get less money. Of course now, given the condition of state finances these allotments are decreasing anyway.

I'll admit it - insurance is risk sharing, plain and simple. I completely agree. However, you share your risk with the populated of fellow insureds, and not the entire population of the U.S.

And like you said, we already have programs in place for the uninsured. Why doesn't the government expand Medicaid instead of wanting to re-create our health system? It's already a form of socialized medical insurance, paid with our tax dollars.

http://www.senioranswers.org/Pages/quickfacts.htm

Financial Qualification Criteria (Partial List)
- Monthly Income less than $1911
- Resources amounting to less than $2000 (couples $3000)

Why not just raise the monthly income limits?

Morg

Blonaybear · #**234** 14.08.2009, 15:53

	Quote:	Zurichowl
	I heard yesterday that the British health system is now in some way capped. Once you have had x amount spent on you a year you don't get any more.

You have a source for this ?

Blonaybear · #**235** 14.08.2009, 15:54

	Quote:	Blonaybear
	But it does cover everyone. See the government website.

Does this change your opinion Hoppy ?

Mikers · #**236** 14.08.2009, 15:56

	Quote:	Zurichowl
	I heard yesterday that the British health system is now in some way capped. Once you have had x amount spent on you a year you don't get any more. .

I heard that my friends mates brothers mums sisters friend said that in America - check this out - if your chinese but you don't speak good French even though your in America then they wont treat you at all! Thats a disgusting policy if you ask me and America as a whole should be ashamed of it.

Meanwhile, could you substantiate your claim that in the UK we stop treating people arbitrarily once they have passed a certain financial value because my brother is the Deputy Financial Director of an NHS Hospital and he isn't aware of this so I think I should let him know.

bigblue2 · #**237** 14.08.2009, 15:56

	Quote:	Zurichowl
	I heard yesterday that the British health system is now in some way capped. Once you have had x amount spent on you a year you don't get any more. I know someone who is sufferring from cancer and she has been refused the latest treatment, which can stop it getting worse because it is too expensive and she has already had a lot spent on her. I'm not sure if that would happen here.

total and utter BS!! there is a part of the nhs that says which drugs can and can't be given out (NICE is its name) if they consider that the latest wonder cancer drug at 15k per week is not cost effective then they wont allow the nhs to give it out, nothing to do with how much they have spent on her, as far as I know (and my brother and sister in law work for the nhs as a paramedic and nurse) they don't keep any notes of the costs of your treatments, there would be a huge outcry if they did.

They do make judgement calls more and more now, a recent case was a young alcoholic with liver failure who was denied a transplant because he was an alcoholic.

The only reason she would be refused the latest and greatest treatment is because everyone is being refused it, the bean counters have done a cost benefit analysis and decide the cheaper drug is better, simple.

#**238** 14.08.2009, 16:16

	Quote:	Blonaybear
	You have a source for this ?

Personal acquantaince living in the UK who has experienced this, not published media

bigblue2 · #**239** 14.08.2009, 16:18

here is a link to nice

http://www.nice.org.uk/

Its not just made up from bean counters its also doctors, nurses, members of the public etc

the nhs doesn't have a bottomless pit of money, yes that wonder drug *may* help 1 person, but the cheaper drug can help 100 people for the same money.

you friend is free to pay for the wonder drug herself, and quite a few people in the uk do 'top up' there treatments.

I also hear insurance companies in the us refuse to pay for mega expensive drug treatments too.

yes its crap if your the 1 person the drug may help, not so crap if your one of the 100 that could be treated with the cheaper drug.

#**240** 14.08.2009, 16:20

	Quote:	bigblue2
	total and utter BS!! there is a part of the nhs that says which drugs can and can't be given out (NICE is its name) if they consider that the latest wonder cancer drug at 15k per week is not cost effective then they wont allow the nhs to give it out, nothing to do with how much they have spent on her, as far as I know (and my brother and sister in law work for the nhs as a paramedic and nurse) they don't keep any notes of the costs of your treatments, there would be a huge outcry if they did. They do make judgement calls more and more now, a recent case was a young alcoholic with liver failure who was denied a transplant because he was an alcoholic. The only reason she would be refused the latest and greatest treatment is because everyone is being refused it, the bean counters have done a cost benefit analysis and decide the cheaper drug is better, simple.

That's what I was told yesterday evening from someone who has experienced it. Believe it or not - your choice. No problem for me. I was told it is done for Dental and Medical treatment.

I don't profess to knowing how it's implemented or how it works and what the criteria is.