Universal Health Coverage --- Call It Socialized Medicine

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As has been said over and over, it is infinitely preferable to have the opportunity to be on a waiting list for non urgent surgery than to feel that your non urgent surgery is so expensive you can't even go to the Dr to find out what the waiting list might be.

I have no idea what part of the UK you lived in, but you are painting a very bleak picture of what is in fact a very successful UHC system. I challenge you to find one 70 year old on any waiting list in the UK who would willingly exchange their current care for a system where there would be every chance that instead of waiting 2 years, (which is by no means universal across the UK, if it is true at all!) they wouldn't even get to see a Dr.

I lived in the part of the UK where a NHS doctor told my father that he was going to go blind and should come to terms with it, when in fact my father had a cataract. That is also the same part of the UK that incorrectly diagnosed a number of women with cancer, only to tell them some time later that in fact they didn't have cancer - admin error unfortunately. Also the same part of the UK where an elderly women died on a hospital bed left in a corridor due to hospital overcrowding, only to be discovered the following day. Who on earth would want that type of care? Why would it be preferable to be on a waiting list where the medical staff are so overworked they make mistakes in your diagnosis, or only can spare 14.7 seconds to understand your complaint as there are another 450 people in the waiting room. And what if you are admitted to hospital for non urgent surgery and find yourself fighting for your life because you have contracted a terrifying disease whilst lying in the hospital ward! My father would gladly tell you that he will no longer visit a NHS doctor or surgery due to lack of care, and mis-diagnosis. That is one 70 year old who would rise to your challenge.

Thank God that nobody here in the US is ever mis-diagnosed, waits to see a doctor, has a procedure performed (if it is at all performed), is attended to in ER's within minutes of arriving, etc., etc. I've taken people to ER's and usually spent hours until any doc ever shows up. Nt that they're lazy, they're busting their ases like no other but the volumes the ER's in the US deal with are just ridiculous - not the least because there are so many people that have only the ER to go to. And I suppose the story that ran on the news just the other day where a woman found herself with both her breasts needlessly removed because she was mis-diagnosed with breast cancer was just some propaganda piece. Medicine is performed by people and people make mistakes. Unless you can come up with some stats that this sort of thing actually correlates to whether there's a UHC or not, I think we can play endless #######-for-tat along those lines. You make it sound like the care people receive here is great. It isn't. A large portion of the population here is simply excluded from adequate care. Other than that it's just a hell of a lot more expensive. But not a hell of a lot better. Not from what I have experienced with and without UHC.

and with millions in the US cancelling their insurance policies to receive "free" healthcare under a UHC scheme, the portion of the population that are excluded from adequate care will see absolutely no difference at all, just an increase in numbers.

That makes no sense at all. We're not talking about taking insurance away from people that currently have it, we're talking about extending it to those that currently don't have it. Affording those that currently do not have adequate access to health care that very access, won't bring the system crumbling down. It'll shift a lot of care away from the ER's into regular and preventive care which is a) more readily available and b ) a hell of a lot cheaper. That would also leave the ER's to do what they're designed to do. And it'll improve the overall health of the US population - we have a bit of catch-up to do with our industrialized counterparts in that respect. They have, despite the horror of UHC's, an overall healthier population.

Edited October 7, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I will never "QUIT" Charles! Just trying to bring out the same in people that havent quite figured it out yet! Its very similar to convincing your kid to get back on the bike that they just crashed on. Their drive comes from watching other kids riding their bikes and the determination to do the same.

Why some have lost this determination is at the heart of the matter. Lets "RIDE"

[Peikko 1,575]

Is this clear enough? I don't dislike, hate, or otherwise feel any negative emotion towards the US government. I do however disagree with some national and some state policies. When I disagree with them, I will voice my disagreement. Really very simple.

As for personal stories on misdiagnoses, less than adequate treatment. As has been stated, we can go around in circles with that one. However, statistically, the US system fails the majority, the UK system serves the majority well. Should the UK system be improved? Without a doubt. Can the US system be improved in its current form so that it does serve at least the majority, it seems highly unlikely mainly because the vested interest, the private health insurance companies, make billions of dollars from the system, there seems to be no incentive or will to improve it, hence the need for change.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Is this clear enough? I don't dislike, hate, or otherwise feel any negative emotion towards the US government. I do however disagree with some national and some state policies. When I disagree with them, I will voice my disagreement. Really very simple.

As for personal stories on misdiagnoses, less than adequate treatment. As has been stated, we can go around in circles with that one. However, statistically, the US system fails the majority, the UK system serves the majority well. Should the UK system be improved? Without a doubt. Can the US system be improved in its current form so that it does serve at least the majority, it seems highly unlikely mainly because the vested interest, the private health insurance companies, make billions of dollars from the system, there seems to be no incentive or will to improve it, hence the need for change.

Purple! I love ya. All your points are absolutely correct! Therefore you can only rely on "one thing". YOU!!!! Dont ever depend on someone else to write your story. You were given a blank tablet and all the pens and pencils you need!

There are BILLIONS of DOLLARS out there just like you said. Your mission, if you choose to accept it is to get some for yourself. This message will self destruct in 30 seconds.

[britty 1]

Is this clear enough? I don't dislike, hate, or otherwise feel any negative emotion towards the US government. I do however disagree with some national and some state policies. When I disagree with them, I will voice my disagreement. Really very simple.

As for personal stories on misdiagnoses, less than adequate treatment. As has been stated, we can go around in circles with that one. However, statistically, the US system fails the majority, the UK system serves the majority well. Should the UK system be improved? Without a doubt. Can the US system be improved in its current form so that it does serve at least the majority, it seems highly unlikely mainly because the vested interest, the private health insurance companies, make billions of dollars from the system, there seems to be no incentive or will to improve it, hence the need for change.

No, the UK system does NOT serve the majority well. It serves the majority, but certainly not well, or indeed fairly. People are now being turned away on a regular basis from doctors surgeries, and told they cannot become a patient of that particular surgery as they currently have too many members. People ARE being refused general care in the UK. In many places it is simply a zipcode lottery as to whether you receive treatment or not. Of course you can obtain emergency care there, but that is also true here too. Rationing, rationing, rationing. That is what it will boil down to when the government here realizes there is simply not the funds to support a UHC here. Christ, if they can't cope in the UK with their population, how on earth can it be sustained here? I will never be convinced that a UHC system is going to work here, not least because the federal government are involved.

[Peikko 1,575]

Your scare stories are simply not born out by either reality, or statistics. You must have been reading too much Daily Mail.

[Caladan 19]

Just as a point: you're already paying for everyone's 'emergency' services. See, the hospital has to accept anyone who comes in for emergency treatment*. Sometimes, like when I went for an arm-that-turned-out-not-to-be-broken, they bill you and you pay it. Sometimes people can't pay it. The hospital has to cover the cost somehow, so built into the costs of their prices is the $100 billion per year they lose in people going to the emergency room and not paying. That gets passed on to the insurance company, and then your premiums go up. You're already paying for their healthcare, except that you're paying for it in the most expensive way possible and one that doesn't result in preventive treatment.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No, the UK system does NOT serve the majority well. It serves the majority, but certainly not well, or indeed fairly. People are now being turned away on a regular basis from doctors surgeries, and told they cannot become a patient of that particular surgery as they currently have too many members. People ARE being refused general care in the UK. In many places it is simply a zipcode lottery as to whether you receive treatment or not. Of course you can obtain emergency care there, but that is also true here too. Rationing, rationing, rationing. That is what it will boil down to when the government here realizes there is simply not the funds to support a UHC here. Christ, if they can't cope in the UK with their population, how on earth can it be sustained here? I will never be convinced that a UHC system is going to work here, not least because the federal government are involved.

Can you go a bit beyond your verbal claims and back up with actual sources the rather grim picture you paint of the UK system?

Christ, if they can't cope in the UK with their population, how on earth can it be sustained here?

Look here: If the UK was to, say, double it's funding of the health care system, the system would stand a pretty good chance of providing top notch service to all, yes? Now consider that the US already funds it's broken and wasteful health care system to that tune today. We're just still not seeing the rewards in return as our privately run system suck up too much of those funds for bureaucracy and red-tape rather than actual care - much more so than any government run system anywhere in the world.

[Peikko 1,575]

You have it right. The facts are that the UK spends just over 7% of GDP on health care and while everyone does have access to health care, there are hot spot areas where care is not as good as it could be. Some of the principles of the NHS sytem were eroded during the 'Thatcher' years and many of the current crisis that exist can be traced back to this attempt to privatise through the back door.

[no name 1]

As has been said over and over, it is infinitely preferable to have the opportunity to be on a waiting list for non urgent surgery than to feel that your non urgent surgery is so expensive you can't even go to the Dr to find out what the waiting list might be.

I have no idea what part of the UK you lived in, but you are painting a very bleak picture of what is in fact a very successful UHC system. I challenge you to find one 70 year old on any waiting list in the UK who would willingly exchange their current care for a system where there would be every chance that instead of waiting 2 years, (which is by no means universal across the UK, if it is true at all!) they wouldn't even get to see a Dr.

I lived in the part of the UK where a NHS doctor told my father that he was going to go blind and should come to terms with it, when in fact my father had a cataract. That is also the same part of the UK that incorrectly diagnosed a number of women with cancer, only to tell them some time later that in fact they didn't have cancer - admin error unfortunately. Also the same part of the UK where an elderly women died on a hospital bed left in a corridor due to hospital overcrowding, only to be discovered the following day. Who on earth would want that type of care? Why would it be preferable to be on a waiting list where the medical staff are so overworked they make mistakes in your diagnosis, or only can spare 14.7 seconds to understand your complaint as there are another 450 people in the waiting room. And what if you are admitted to hospital for non urgent surgery and find yourself fighting for your life because you have contracted a terrifying disease whilst lying in the hospital ward! My father would gladly tell you that he will no longer visit a NHS doctor or surgery due to lack of care, and mis-diagnosis. That is one 70 year old who would rise to your challenge.

Thank God that nobody here in the US is ever mis-diagnosed, waits to see a doctor, has a procedure performed (if it is at all performed), is attended to in ER's within minutes of arriving, etc., etc. I've taken people to ER's and usually spent hours until any doc ever shows up. Nt that they're lazy, they're busting their ases like no other but the volumes the ER's in the US deal with are just ridiculous - not the least because there are so many people that have only the ER to go to. And I suppose the story that ran on the news just the other day where a woman found herself with both her breasts needlessly removed because she was mis-diagnosed with breast cancer was just some propaganda piece. Medicine is performed by people and people make mistakes. Unless you can come up with some stats that this sort of thing actually correlates to whether there's a UHC or not, I think we can play endless #######-for-tat along those lines. You make it sound like the care people receive here is great. It isn't. A large portion of the population here is simply excluded from adequate care. Other than that it's just a hell of a lot more expensive. But not a hell of a lot better. Not from what I have experienced with and without UHC.

Cuz healthcare is always so incredibly TOP NOTCH here in America. We never have mistakes, ever. We never have misdiagnoses or bad surgery.

Let me tell the story about how my foot is permanently disfigured by a doctor (whom my insurance paid for!) who took out too much bone - I can't walk for long periods, I can't wear high heels for long, numbness, etc...I'll be sure & let you know the outcome of my lawsuit (2 years + counting).

On that (#######) NHS program in the UK, I got into a top notch UK surgeon in 5 months - who tried unsuccessfully to fix it FOR FREE - but did an amazing job & saw me often for pre- & post-op follow-up, etc, etc.

[no name 1]

Your scare stories are simply not born out by either reality, or statistics. You must have been reading too much Daily Mail.

Nah, it's gotta be the Sun. Free boobies on page 3!

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think Britty is a lesbian.

[no name 1]

I don't think Britty is a lesbian.

nah, but she does seem to prefer the sensationalized tales, more often found in the Sun.

[trailmix 77]

and with millions in the US cancelling their insurance policies to receive "free" healthcare under a UHC scheme, the portion of the population that are excluded from adequate care will see absolutely no difference at all, just an increase in numbers.

Good, people should be able to cancel their policies if they want and utilize the UHC system - that's the point - it's universal and everyone should be able to use it.

"Free"? I haven't heard anyone say or even imply that a UHC system is free? Any thinking person knows it absolutely isn't free.

The difference is they will have access to a Doctor when they need one - they won't need to camp out in the ER waiting room.

Edited October 7, 2007 by trailmix

[Peikko 1,575]

I say the Daily Mail because it appeals to those who believe they are being presented with rational arguments, when in reality they are being fed emotional clap trap.