Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:
What insurance is worse than Medicare?

The fact that you think medicare is bad speaks volumes.

Just about any HMO is worse than medicare given a person that travels frequently.

Similarly, low-end PPOs are universally worse than medicare, as they frequently have no drug coverage, and minimal technical levies (ie. they don't pay for MRIs).

Redbeard wrote:
The one Ketara also mentioned. The one where you can pay to go to a doctor outside the NHS, and get better treatment.

Ah, the penny drops. BUPA. There are lots of other private medical firms as well but BUPA is the best known and most advertised.

Not exactly a dirty little secret "behind" the NHS! I am dissapointed that hysterical descriptions creep back in with little or no substance to the factual reality. Again.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
What insurance is worse than Medicare?

The fact that you think medicare is bad speaks volumes.

Just about any HMO is worse than medicare given a person that travels frequently.

Similarly, low-end PPOs are universally worse than medicare, as they frequently have no drug coverage, and minimal technical levies (ie. they don't pay for MRIs).

So you don't have any information to support your statement. In that case

What

The

Ever.

Frazzled wrote:
So you don't have any information to support your statement. In that case

What

The

Ever.

Do you want general categorical information, or information about a specific plan?

Honestly, I didn't provide any because you have a history of ignoring any information that is provided. At first glance it appeared to be a waste of my time.

Ok, here's a good example.

To paraphrase, despite acknowledging that MRIs of the breast are useful in detecting breast cancer, CIGNA will not cover breast MRIs because they consider the procedure to be, arbitrarily, experimental. This is generally indicative of managed health care organizations, who often use technical exclusions in order to remove from coverage certain otherwise useful procedures. This is worse than medicare, which has no such restriction policies. Depending on the part restriction, they might pay for a variable amount of the procedure, but they will never pay for none of it.

halonachos wrote:As to having to pay the NHS and a private person for seeing the private person, yes there is a flaw there.

It would be like having to pay the USPS(United States Postal Service) whenever we use FedEx or UPS.

Just wanted to point out here though that the quality of care with private in the UK is equal to the best of the US, and while you are technically paying twice (really though it is more like paying for a more luxurious service like an upgraded seat on an airplane), you could pay about 15 times over and still come out cheaper than the US cost for the equivalent best case options for a treatment. That is the crux of the debate in my opinion - the crazy inflated cost of the US's healthcare rather than any subjective quality measures.

legoburner wrote:

halonachos wrote:As to having to pay the NHS and a private person for seeing the private person, yes there is a flaw there.

It would be like having to pay the USPS(United States Postal Service) whenever we use FedEx or UPS.

Just wanted to point out here though that the quality of care with private in the UK is equal to the best of the US

But...but we're No. 1.

legoburner wrote: That is the crux of the debate in my opinion - the crazy inflated cost of the US's healthcare rather than any subjective quality measures.

Agreed!

I wonder how the American public would feel about their healthcare system, if it transpired that it wasn't the best in the world, despite the cost of it?

The Dreadnote wrote:I wonder how the American public would feel about their healthcare system, if it transpired that it wasn't the best in the world, despite the cost of it?

As long as its still better than Britain's

It'll never be better then the UK's health system.

We spell our drugs better.

The official stats for how the health systems compare : http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tsI9mtBAHd84DHdNQhO17Pg

Elmodiddly wrote:It'll never be better then the UK's health system.

We spell our drugs better.

The official stats for how the health systems compare : http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tsI9mtBAHd84DHdNQhO17Pg

Incorrect. You have a profligate surplus of 'ou's in your prescriptions. Clearly there's an issue there.

See. We are so efficient and so much better off we can afford to have surplus lettering.

I have a stammer so am used to having surplus letters randomly inserting themselves anyway.

The problem in my opinion fraz is that the US uses wimpy ways of describing diseases, whereas here in the UK we use nice long names that make things sound much more serious, giving us a much stronger ability to whine to friends and co-workers:
pinkeye = conjunctivitis
mono = glandular fever
canker sore = mouth ulcer
etc etc

Elmodiddly wrote:See. We are so efficient and so much better off we can afford to have surplus lettering.

I have a stammer so am used to having surplus letters randomly inserting themselves anyway.

Thats ok. I just ramble incoherently. At least you have an excuse.

legoburner wrote:The problem in my opinion fraz is that the US uses wimpy ways of describing diseases, whereas here in the UK we use nice long names that make things sound much more serious, giving us a much stronger ability to whine to friends and co-workers:
pinkeye = conjunctivitis
mono = glandular fever
canker sore = mouth ulcer
etc etc

ZOMG, LEGOBURNER HAS INVADED THE OFF-TOPIC FORUM!



And we dumb down disease names 'cause there are some uneducated rabble still within their constitutional right to forgo a public education and be home-tutoreded.ed

WarOne wrote:And we dumb down disease names 'cause there are some uneducated rabble still within their constitutional right to forgo a public education and be home-tutoreded.ed

They has a right to be edjumacated however they want!

Gibbsey wrote:

WarOne wrote:And we dumb down disease names 'cause there are some uneducated rabble still within their constitutional right to forgo a public education and be home-tutoreded.ed

They has a right to be edjumacated however they want!

Andz we rite Bible and GUnz well too!

Oh I dunno. The UK has their fair share of village idiots.

Elmodiddly wrote:Oh I dunno. The UK has their fair share of village idiots.

I bet you don't have a raving lunatic as a person in the limelite like we do *cough* Sarah Palin *cough.*

To be fair, its more about her lack of depth in the knowledge pool and her decisions more than anything else.

WarOne wrote:

Elmodiddly wrote:Oh I dunno. The UK has their fair share of village idiots.

I bet you don't have a raving lunatic as a person in the limelite like we do *cough* Sarah Palin *cough.*

To be fair, its more about her lack of depth in the knowledge pool and her decisions more than anything else.

And her not going onto any news shows which would give her any questions of any degree of difficulty, seriously can fox news suck up to her any more?

Is ignorant decision making that much different from lunacy?

Gibbsey wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Elmodiddly wrote:Oh I dunno. The UK has their fair share of village idiots.

I bet you don't have a raving lunatic as a person in the limelite like we do *cough* Sarah Palin *cough.*

To be fair, its more about her lack of depth in the knowledge pool and her decisions more than anything else.

And her not going onto any news shows which would give her any questions of any degree of difficulty, seriously can fox news suck up to her any more?

Oh wait are you referring to the reality show chick or Joe Biden?

Frazzled wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Elmodiddly wrote:Oh I dunno. The UK has their fair share of village idiots.

I bet you don't have a raving lunatic as a person in the limelite like we do *cough* Sarah Palin *cough.*

To be fair, its more about her lack of depth in the knowledge pool and her decisions more than anything else.

And her not going onto any news shows which would give her any questions of any degree of difficulty, seriously can fox news suck up to her any more?

Oh wait are you referring to the reality show chick or Joe Biden?

Frazzled everyone known that Joe Biden is only there so that no one assasinates Obama, i mean who wants Biden running the country?

Good point.

Frazzled wrote:Good point.

Yes, a very good point.

Frazzled wrote:

LOL

I think the internet hates you Frazzled.

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

LOL

I think the internet hates you Frazzled.

Man I hope so.

Frazzled wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

LOL

I think the internet hates you Frazzled.

Man I hope so.

Here is an appropriate image:

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

LOL

I think the internet hates you Frazzled.

Man I hope so.

Here is an appropriate image: