Health Care Bill

[Narei Mooncatt]

Looking at it this way, which would you prefer?  To help pay for someone to get the treatment they need without the bureaucracy that we have now with our insurance companies, that allows that person to get back on their feet and self supporting sooner than later?

I would love to be able to help people without going through the bureaucracy. But as I've said before, judging by our goverment's past record of inefficientcies, I think going to a plan like you want would create more red tape, more wasteful spending (and cutting waste doesn't have to mean cutting coverage), and lesser treatments available. When you put politicians in charge of anything, they look at it in terms of how many votes it could get them, not how it should be best run. Our goverment was never intended to be in the business of business, and it shows.

[Yip]

Our goverment was never intended to be in the business of business, and it shows.

But then, a lot of the problems with health care are there because it's a business.

I've been thinking, if there were a country like the US except that it always had privately controlled military, a move to put that under the government would likely elicit all the same kind of arguments against that which have been put out here against government health care. And then some.

Just some food for thought.

[Narei Mooncatt]

Ever played the game, HAWX? Scary the things that come to mind if even a fraction of what happens in that game is fathomable in the real world if what you suggest happens. It would be a derailment to go on about it, but sufice it to say I don't think I'd be for a private military unit in the first place. Considering it's all hypothetical, who really knows how the arguement would pan out.

[Yip]

Ever played the game, HAWX? Scary the things that come to mind if even a fraction of what happens in that game is fathomable in the real world if what you suggest happens. It would be a derailment to go on about it, but sufice it to say I don't think I'd be for a private military unit in the first place. Considering it's all hypothetical, who really knows how the arguement would pan out.

No, I haven't played that game. However, from what I understand of it's backstory, that's not at all what I was getting at. For the hypothetical country I'm speaking of, they would have never had a government military.  I'm sure there'd be problems with such a system (likely pretty major ones), but for the sake of argument set that aside. The whole point of this is to look at the issue from a different prospective. So it misses the point to get hung up on how a system with private militaries wouldn't work well. Instead, think of how people used to such a system would respond to a push to move it under the government, even if just partially.

Growing up with such a system, many of them would find it hard to imagine things working any other way.  Many of them would likely oppose any mention of a government military, seeing it as the government taking control in places where they shouldn't be. And they'd complain that it would make the people complacent. That military should be run by people that know how it works, not politicians. That the government would add all kind of delays and red tape, and that a government military would be less efficient. That it would eliminate choice. That those that make enough to afford their own protection would be forced to effectively pay double for a service they themselves won't use. That, sure it's good to help protect your follow citizens, but no one should be forced to.  And so on.

I say this not to say that these arguments are necessarily bad. Some of these may in fact be legitimate concerns. But, my point is simply that in this hypothetical situation, it's interesting how well the arguments could parallel. Of course it is just hypothetical, but as I said, it is an interesting exercise to try to see things from a different prospective.

[Narei Mooncatt]

What's ironic though, is I think the military is about the only thing the government has worked more or less correctly. Then again, the people actually running it aren't the politicians.

But back on topic now, please?

[Kada-Ru]

Now, on the other side of the coin.  Recently WS's sister-in-law moved here from Germany.  A country with the NHS.  I asked her some questions about it and the difference from what we have here in the US.  She said that the NHS there isn't free because everyone that works HAS to pay a percentage of their income into the NHS. The higher the income, the higher the percentage to be paid.  Now, it is mandatory for the working folk to pay into the NHS.  So that is basically what would happen here.  She was also telling me that if it wasn't mandatory in Germany a lot of people would opt out of having to pay into the program.  She said she would rather have the plan that we have.  But I do have a feeling if she gets injured/seriously ill, she may find out how much health care here really costs.

But, I thought I would just put here what I have learned from someone close to us that lived in an NHS society.

[CiceroKit]

I feel for you Kada. I too live with chronic pain through no choice of my own. It is due to multi-chemical sensitivity, an ailment that I could not prevent getting. Due to heavy levels of PCBs in the groundwater where I was raised, I developed this and numerous other health problems. My mother, who is an avid environmentalist, did not contribute to this. I, myself, who has eaten an organic diet since my teens, did not contribute to this. Yet, when for two years, when it was impossible for me to work at all, I was unable to get assistance from a government program. I was denied SSDI repeatedly. I am actually still waiting to hear about a settlement. I work now, but a lot of what I do is from home. For those two years without health insurance, I was able to get on a community care program through an area Catholic Hospital. It is a great program that can cover services that they provide at one of their clinics or at their hospital, but it wouldn't cover prescriptions or certain treatments that would have helped me. I rely on home delivered oxygen. I used to have to get a ride to the nearest clinic (about 15-20 minutes from where I live) to get on oxygen when I would get a bad migraine, because I simply could not afford the $400 per month for it to be delivered. But worst than that, if there was a surgery I needed, even if it would have been provided through one of the hospitals with a community care program, I would have still been expected to pay more than I could have possibly afforded... enough where I likely would have been denied surgery. Why? Because the hospitals near me go through an outside, independently owned clinic for anesthesia. I don't know who here has had a recent surgery, but I just did, and over half of the $5,000+ bill for outpatient surgery was anesthesia. Even after insurance, I am going to have to pay on the installment plan, but if I were still without full-time work and without insurance, as I was when my disability was more severe, I would have never been able to afford this.

[Arbutus]

Here's a pretty good explanation of the healthcare debate, done on the back of napkins.

http://www.slideshare.net/danroam/healthcare-napkins-all

They claim it only took four napkins, but it's really more like fifty, lol. Still a surprisingly good summation.

[CiceroKit]

So true!

[Kada-Ru]

I feel for you too, CiceroKit.  Having to deal with pain on a regular basis is NO fun no matter how we got it.

Arbutus, I just read a few of the comments from that link you posted.  It got me to thinking about something.

I know we have members here from all over the world.  I would like to hear how other members, not from the US, view their NHS health care and what they would like to see different in it if they could.  Since I am not from another country I can't say how well someone from another country feels.

I would like to hear some of your view points to better understand YOUR health care.

In the video I suggested for all to view, one person from another country, decided to take their vacation in the US.  The man was into golfing.  He went out and was golfing one day and did something to his arm which he had to go to the ER, here in the US, for.   After being told it would cost him in the hundreds of thousands to have surgery to repair the damage he decided to walk out of our ER and cut his vacation short and went back home where he was able to get his damaged arm cared for WITHOUT having to figure out how he was going to pay for his care.

Another thing I think is great about the NHS in other countries is that people don't lose their homes nor every thing they have worked for in their lives because they can't pay for their health coverage.  That to me is a HUGE plus in my books.

If knowing later in life that I could lose EVERYTHING I worked my entire life for because I couldn't pay for my medical, I probably wouldn't want to work so hard.  Why bother?

One of the families in that video worked hard all their lives to purchase a good home, raised their 6 kids in, sent them ALL to college and was looking forward to a peaceful retirement.  Then the man got ill.  That was the start of the medical bills mounting.   A month or two later his wife became ill.  MORE medical bills that they couldn't afford.  They were the ones I said lost their home.  Their entire life savings.  Now, sure they had 6 kids that were working and had their own homes/families.  Since the couple lost everything they ended up having to try and depend on their kids for help just for a place to stay till they could figure out how to get back on their feet.  One son, I would have loved to have shot that moron, said it was all the parents own fault and when were they going to quit depending on the kids.  Very arrogant if you ask me since the parents did EVERYTHING to make their kids have a good education.

Well, one of their kids did say they would make room for them in one of the kids rooms though they wouldn't be able to put anything much of their own in there.  It was only temporary.

Can anyone imagine what it would be like to be that older couple?  How degraded they felt?  And why?  BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T AFFORD THEIR HEALTH CARE.  Very sad if you ask me.  I already know that I wouldn't be able to depend on my son if need be.  That is such a very very sad feeling to have in the later years.

Ok, sorry.  I'm done.

[Narei Mooncatt]

Kada, I know of the film you're talking about and I'd suggest you and everyone that wishes to see it understand it's completely biased and the guy that produced it is pretty far out there. There's also a documentary out about Mr. Moore that should interest his fans (I haven't seen it or any of Moore's films myself, only going on various news about them).

“When we started this project we hoped to have done a documentary that celebrated Michael Moore. We were admirers and fans,” said Debbie Melnyk, who made the film with her husband, Rick Caine. “Then we found out certain facts about his documentaries that we hadn’t known before. We ended up very disappointed and disillusioned.”

I to am open to hear more opinions from users of NHS type systems, but I would also like to hear about what they're giving up for their healthcare. I hear various news articles from other countries on the radio about various scandles, and how France is going *away* from it and moving more towards a U.S. styled system.

In the video I suggested for all to view, one person from another country, decided to take their vacation in the US.  The man was into golfing.  He went out and was golfing one day and did something to his arm which he had to go to the ER, here in the US, for.   After being told it would cost him in the hundreds of thousands to have surgery to repair the damage he decided to walk out of our ER and cut his vacation short and went back home where he was able to get his damaged arm cared for WITHOUT having to figure out how he was going to pay for his care.

Personally, I don't see a problem with this. If you're in another country, you should know things will be different. And while he went back to get his "free" care, he's paying for it by other means. On the flip side, I was recently talking to someone that lives in England about someone like me going over there for a visit and what would happen if I needed medical care. According to him, I'd likely get it at no out of pocket cost like they do. To me, *THAT* is what isn't fair. Here I am, having paid nothing in to their system of care, and they'd still give it to me? I think I should have to pay for it...if they'd even let me try, that is. I don't know if I'd even get the option to pay my way.

[Sskessa]

According to him, I'd likely get it at no out of pocket cost like they do. To me, *THAT* is what isn't fair. Here I am, having paid nothing in to their system of care, and they'd still give it to me? I think I should have to pay for it...if they'd even let me try, that is. I don't know if I'd even get the option to pay my way.

Yeah, so? You used their roads, which you didn't pay for, and their water and electricity, which you didn't pay for.

[WhiteShepherd]

Narei

On the flip side, I was recently talking to someone that lives in England about someone like me going over there for a visit and what would happen if I needed medical care. According to him, I'd likely get it at no out of pocket cost like they do. To me, *THAT* is what isn't fair. Here I am, having paid nothing in to their system of care, and they'd still give it to me? I think I should have to pay for it...if they'd even let me try, that is. I don't know if I'd even get the option to pay my way.

That's the thing.  As part of England they feel it's a responsibility of the public (not a choice) to take care of each other.  They protect their young and old with government run police, and protect the people against unforeseen disasters with a government fire department.  Plus they protect the people rich and poor from the illness that strike every single person sooner or later.  I understand your justification that you feel if you did not pay into their system then it's not right to take their help.   But that concept is about the money and that is not the idea around NHS they have made it a "strict humanitarian" issue. Ie it's the right thing to do. It's like if someone fell at the park and was badly hurt anyone there would feel it's their responsibility to help how they could another human being (even foreigners they do not know because it is a responsibility toward a higher humanitarian standard).  As an analogy US health care by contrast in America if someone fell and was badly hurt nobody would want to help them if they were poor, laid off, or had a pre existing condition.  If forced to help that person they would do the minimal possible to "stabilize" then walk away with the rights to take away the injured person's home/belongings in recompense.

From my view and I know it differs from others, I see the issue as those of us who want to stand for our responsibility as Americans that we will protect each other and all Americans the rich and the poor in the good times as well as hard.  It's time to stop putting a price tag on someones life.  It's time we stop the profiteering from those who are sick and hopeless.

Narei you said you wanted some negative accounts of British health service.  ANY system will have it's success stories as well as it's botches.  But picked out event it doesn't always make up the whole truth (on both sides of this issue I agree).  To your request Time made I felt a very good unbiased (neither pro or con to the debate) article on the state of Britian's health care.  The article can be found here:  http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1916570,00.html

[Narei Mooncatt]

Great find, WS, as that article did seem pretty unbiased (though another article linked on the last page seemed like it was against NHS depending on your viewpoint), and that's pretty much what I was asking for. Not really negative accounts, but just the trade offs. I.E. paying the higher taxes, waiting times, treatment option limitations, etc. Just as under our system, we have to give up some things in/for our care, the English do too (as well as other countries with similar systems). And most of all, do the users think it's worth those trade offs. That secondary article I mentioned (DIRECT LINK HERE) talked about this, but first hand accounts are always preferable.

[Yip]

And most of all, do the users think it's worth those trade offs.

Judging from both of those articles and what other I've heard about it, in the case of the British health care system the answer appears to be most definitely yes. But perhaps those here who are in/from the UK could enlighten us on further on that.

[Kada-Ru]

Kada, I know of the film you're talking about and I'd suggest you and everyone that wishes to see it understand it's completely biased and the guy that produced it is pretty far out there. There's also a documentary out about Mr. Moore that should interest his fans (I haven't seen it or any of Moore's films myself, only going on various news about them).

Yes, I know this.  Actually this is the first film of his that I actually liked.  I was so sickened by how we, as Americans, especially in the medical field could treat our people the way that some were treated in that film.  It really did open my eyes quite a bit.

So, it isn't as though I don't know Moore has a reputation.

I to am open to hear more opinions from users of NHS type systems, but I would also like to hear about what they're giving up for their healthcare. I hear various news articles from other countries on the radio about various scandles, and how France is going *away* from it and moving more towards a U.S. styled system.

Exactly.  That way we will get a better view of things and not just from the media nor from Mr. Moore.

Personally, I don't see a problem with this. If you're in another country, you should know things will be different. And while he went back to get his "free" care, he's paying for it by other means. On the flip side, I was recently talking to someone that lives in England about someone like me going over there for a visit and what would happen if I needed medical care. According to him, I'd likely get it at no out of pocket cost like they do. To me, *THAT* is what isn't fair. Here I am, having paid nothing in to their system of care, and they'd still give it to me? I think I should have to pay for it...if they'd even let me try, that is. I don't know if I'd even get the option to pay my way.

Oh, I totally agree.  I'm not saying they get it TOTALLY free but at least they don't have to worry about losing their life savings/homes etc if they don't have up front monies for their health care like we do.

I do hope that members from other countries will put in their 25 cents worth to help enlighten us Americans.  What they feel are the pros and cons of their NHS.

I am really interesting in finding out.