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.

 Alfndrate wrote:
If I'm not mistaken... don't you have to pay for emergency room services?

You do. Many hospitals have various schemes for debt forgiveness or amelioration if you can't afford it, though.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So then why is it acceptable to have a health care system that doesn't provide treatment regardless of profit and leaves people to die if they can't afford it?

If you're about to die, please, call 911 or walk into any emergency room in the country. You'll get treated.

If I'm not mistaken... don't you have to pay for emergency room services?

Edit: apparently it's just for the ambulance... >_>

Yeah... if you can. But, they still have to treat/stabilize you even if you don't have any way to pay them back.

 whembly wrote:

I have bunch more...

I've been on record that I'd actually favor the Canadian model...

But, when you trade one system for another... you're essentially also trading one set of problems for another.

See what I mean?

But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

Both these countries have private medical insurance, that's what I keep seeing being left off the right wing articles and news, you can have your cake and eat it (and receive care for cake addiction).

Also, nice articles, hows about 45000 people, per year, dying in American due to lack of healthcare? One every 12 mins.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I have bunch more...

I've been on record that I'd actually favor the Canadian model...

But, when you trade one system for another... you're essentially also trading one set of problems for another.

See what I mean?

But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

You talking about the ACA act? The mandate? Trust me... it's a bad law. I'm not sure why opponents are fighting so hard, unless something changes, it'll fall flat on it's face.

Both these countries have private medical insurance, that's what I keep seeing being left off the right wing articles and news, you can have your cake and eat it (and receive care for cake addiction).

Sure, they have nice things too (so does US healthcare). Both system have problems and will always have problems... in a different way.

Also, nice articles, hows about 45000 people, per year, dying in American due to lack of healthcare? One every 12 mins.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917

I know that article... I have to find that counter point. Seb asked for it and I still can't find it. Maybe it was a speech on campus(?).

The Washington School of Medicine here in St. Louis disagreed with Harvard's findings...it was an awesome "tit-for-tat" academic bruhah that was awesome.

The point being... There is NO perfect system. Someone will get screwed.

 whembly wrote:

Yeah... if you can. But, they still have to treat/stabilize you even if you don't have any way to pay them back.

Stabilize >< Fix/cure. It's patch up and send back out to die.

From moving here, I earned more or less the same amount of money and was around $100 worse off a month due to insurance instead of the NHS, not factoring in copay charges and prescriptions as and when I was charged for them.

In the UK, shortly before I moved, my grandmother suffered terrible bloodpressure and heart issues, being in and out of HDU with each bout over the course of about 6 months, with tests, Drs appointments and homecare, all done on the NHS, it was amazing, the level of care, the synchronicity and shared information.

After moving here, my mother in law fell ill with returned cancer, she had amazing insurance coverage as the widow of a firechief. The healthcare was shocking, she was shunted from hospital to eldercare and back, noone told us, we'd go to the hospital and they couldn't find her. Different private medical businesses were prescribing drugs that reacted badly to each other, noone shared records, she was a commodity and I watched how profit can utterly override the principles of medical treatment. It was appalling.

 whembly wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I have bunch more...

I've been on record that I'd actually favor the Canadian model...

But, when you trade one system for another... you're essentially also trading one set of problems for another.

See what I mean?

But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

You talking about the ACA act? The mandate? Trust me... it's a bad law. I'm not sure why opponents are fighting so hard, unless something changes, it'll fall flat on it's face.

No I think he is refering to the two speed system. In Canada, and I imagine in the UK, you can pay for faster health care. You have both universal and private healthcare. The issue is that the system is relatively new, and they use the same facilities for many of the operations, meaning that you don't can't cut down on the waiting time in many cases. Probably going to change/has already changed...

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I have bunch more...

I've been on record that I'd actually favor the Canadian model...

But, when you trade one system for another... you're essentially also trading one set of problems for another.

See what I mean?

But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

You talking about the ACA act? The mandate? Trust me... it's a bad law. I'm not sure why opponents are fighting so hard, unless something changes, it'll fall flat on it's face.

No I think he is refering to the two speed system. In Canada, and I imagine in the UK, you can pay for faster health care. You have both universal and private healthcare. The issue is that the system is relatively new, and they use the same facilities for many of the operations, meaning that you don't can't cut down on the waiting time in many cases. Probably going to change/has already changed...

REALLY?

Now that's interesting... do you have a good source, I'd like to read up on it. (I'll do some google-fu too).

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

Exactly. I don't think anyone is arguing for making private health care illegal. If private businesses can provide better and/or cheaper health care than the government then they're free to do so. But TBH I think what conservatives/libertarians are terrified of is finding out that when you have a head to head competition between the two the government option will win.

 Peregrine wrote:
Exactly. I don't think anyone is arguing for making private health care illegal. If private businesses can provide better and/or cheaper health care than the government then they're free to do so. But TBH I think what conservatives/libertarians are terrified of is finding out that when you have a head to head competition between the two the government option will win.

In some respects, not in others.

Tough to compete with an entity that can just keep sucking more money out of everyone through more taxes whenever it likes, though.

 whembly wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I have bunch more...

I've been on record that I'd actually favor the Canadian model...

But, when you trade one system for another... you're essentially also trading one set of problems for another.

See what I mean?

But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

You talking about the ACA act? The mandate? Trust me... it's a bad law. I'm not sure why opponents are fighting so hard, unless something changes, it'll fall flat on it's face.

No I think he is refering to the two speed system. In Canada, and I imagine in the UK, you can pay for faster health care. You have both universal and private healthcare. The issue is that the system is relatively new, and they use the same facilities for many of the operations, meaning that you don't can't cut down on the waiting time in many cases. Probably going to change/has already changed...

REALLY?

Now that's interesting... do you have a good source, I'd like to read up on it. (I'll do some google-fu too).

Yes, of course the UK has universal state healthcare and, if you don't want that, you can fast track with private options. We don't make you use the public services, your taxes contribute to them.

I'd likely be using private healthcare in the UK right now for cosmetic things or minor bumps and bashes. I had very excellent medical insurance when I worked for a private medical insurance company... in the UK.

 Peregrine wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

Exactly. I don't think anyone is arguing for making private health care illegal. If private businesses can provide better and/or cheaper health care than the government then they're free to do so. But TBH I think what conservatives/libertarians are terrified of is finding out that when you have a head to head competition between the two the government option will win.

But the government influences the Heathcare heavily already guys.

Especially on the Medicare reimbursement rates... guess what? The insurance industries uses the GOVERNMENT REIMBURSEMENT rates as a baseline for their own rates to the providers.

US Healthcare isn't a "true capitalistic" model.

 whembly wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I have bunch more...

I've been on record that I'd actually favor the Canadian model...

But, when you trade one system for another... you're essentially also trading one set of problems for another.

See what I mean?

But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

You talking about the ACA act? The mandate? Trust me... it's a bad law. I'm not sure why opponents are fighting so hard, unless something changes, it'll fall flat on it's face.

No I think he is refering to the two speed system. In Canada, and I imagine in the UK, you can pay for faster health care. You have both universal and private healthcare. The issue is that the system is relatively new, and they use the same facilities for many of the operations, meaning that you don't can't cut down on the waiting time in many cases. Probably going to change/has already changed...

REALLY?

Now that's interesting... do you have a good source, I'd like to read up on it. (I'll do some google-fu too).

Not really. It's not so much of a policy as a state of affairs, and in Quebec at least it's seen as a bad thing, the result of the deficiencies of the public system. The only things that comes up are article in french, like this one ; http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/363355/la-medecine-a-deux-vitesses-inquiete-quebec, and they focuses primarily on it's problems. I guess you could try google translating it.

Mind you, healthcare is administrated provincially in Canada, so it's possibly different for Azazel or Poda-t.

This is another one you might want to try translating. http://voir.ca/societe/2002/01/17/privatisation-des-soins-de-sante-vers-un-systeme-a-deux-vitesses-encore/

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Exactly. I don't think anyone is arguing for making private health care illegal. If private businesses can provide better and/or cheaper health care than the government then they're free to do so. But TBH I think what conservatives/libertarians are terrified of is finding out that when you have a head to head competition between the two the government option will win.

In some respects, not in others.

Tough to compete with an entity that can just keep sucking more money out of everyone through more taxes whenever it likes, though.

Where do you pull this from?

The healthcare service has to be allocated a portion of the taxes of the country, this is tempered by other things also requiring the tax and the party in power wishing to remain in power by not taxing the nation into trouble.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Yes, of course the UK has universal state healthcare and, if you don't want that, you can fast track with private options. We don't make you use the public services, your taxes contribute to them.

I'd likely be using private healthcare in the UK right now for cosmetic things or minor bumps and bashes. I had very excellent medical insurance when I worked for a private medical insurance company... in the UK.

Yeah...to me, that's the ideal model.

*shrugs*

Here in the US it's too fething political to have an adult conversation now...

 Peregrine wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

Exactly. I don't think anyone is arguing for making private health care illegal. If private businesses can provide better and/or cheaper health care than the government then they're free to do so. But TBH I think what conservatives/libertarians are terrified of is finding out that when you have a head to head competition between the two the government option will win.

Lots of people here do argue against the legality of private health care, the main reason being that you'd see a major exode of public health specialist toward the private sector, when the education of those specialists is incredibly subsidized by the rest of the population.

 whembly wrote:
REALLY?

Now that's interesting... do you have a good source, I'd like to read up on it. (I'll do some google-fu too).

I don't know about anywhere else, but here you can certainly pay for private health care. For example, I needed a scan and had the option of getting a public one in about six weeks. I thought that was too long to wait for it, so instead I contacted a private hospital and it was done in under 24 hours at my expense.

 whembly wrote:

Especially on the Medicare reimbursement rates... guess what? The insurance industries uses the GOVERNMENT REIMBURSEMENT rates as a baseline for their own rates to the providers.

US Healthcare isn't a "true capitalistic" model.

Which is why you should move to an entirely public universal healthcare system for the nation, for all the nation, funded by income tax, and allow private sector alternatives that can set their own prices and compete with each other on their prices, whilst remaining mindful that they have to provide a better service than the public sector.

 Seaward wrote:


Tough to compete with an entity that can just keep sucking more money out of everyone through more taxes whenever it likes, though.

Private practicians makes a hell of a lot more money than public ones. And they have more sensible workloads. Its the State that can't compete, really. But the ressource it competes for isn't profits, it's specialists.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Where do you pull this from?

The healthcare service has to be allocated a portion of the taxes of the country, this is tempered by other things also requiring the tax and the party in power wishing to remain in power by not taxing the nation into trouble.

Yeah, that's an insurmountable problem.

If only there were a portion of society who weren't going to vote for us anyway who we could keep raising taxes on in order to continue handing out goodies to the lower strata to keep them fat and happy and, of course, voting for us.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Especially on the Medicare reimbursement rates... guess what? The insurance industries uses the GOVERNMENT REIMBURSEMENT rates as a baseline for their own rates to the providers.

US Healthcare isn't a "true capitalistic" model.

Which is why you should move to an entirely public universal healthcare system for the nation, for all the nation, funded by income tax, and allow private sector alternatives that can set their own prices and compete with each other on their prices, whilst remaining mindful that they have to provide a better service than the public sector.

You're preaching to the choir here buddy.

FYI: I work in the healthcare field (in IT).

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Lots of people here do argue against the legality of private health care, the main reason being that you'd see a major exode of public health specialist toward the private sector, when the education of those specialists is incredibly subsidized by the rest of the population.

We've seen that also, the NHS and state dentists especially, train up young medical professionals on the taxpayer's money to have them slither off to play golf and charge a fortune.

Make them sign a contract, binding them to a period of time in the public sector if the public sector trains them, or let them repay the training...

NHS doctors are still extremely well paid and if they really need to go live the life of Riley, let them repay their debt to the people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Where do you pull this from?

The healthcare service has to be allocated a portion of the taxes of the country, this is tempered by other things also requiring the tax and the party in power wishing to remain in power by not taxing the nation into trouble.

Yeah, that's an insurmountable problem.

If only there were a portion of society who weren't going to vote for us anyway who we could keep raising taxes on in order to continue handing out goodies to the lower strata to keep them fat and happy and, of course, voting for us.

However did you climb from the very pages of a Dickensian novel workhouse, Mr Beadle?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Lots of people here do argue against the legality of private health care, the main reason being that you'd see a major exode of public health specialist toward the private sector, when the education of those specialists is incredibly subsidized by the rest of the population.

We've seen that also, the NHS and state dentists especially, train up young medical professionals on the taxpayer's money to have them slither off to play golf and charge a fortune.

Make them sign a contract, binding them to a period of time in the public sector if the public sector trains them, or let them repay the training...

NHS doctors are still extremely well paid and if they really need to go live the life of Riley, let them repay their debt to the people.

A very brief bit of Google-fu shows that in 2008, NHS specialists made between £36,807 and £70,126.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
However did you climb from the very pages of a Dickensian novel workhouse, Mr Beadle?

I sat around pumping out kids until someone decided I deserved a McMansion.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Lots of people here do argue against the legality of private health care, the main reason being that you'd see a major exode of public health specialist toward the private sector, when the education of those specialists is incredibly subsidized by the rest of the population.

We've seen that also, the NHS and state dentists especially, train up young medical professionals on the taxpayer's money to have them slither off to play golf and charge a fortune.

Make them sign a contract, binding them to a period of time in the public sector if the public sector trains them, or let them repay the training...

NHS doctors are still extremely well paid and if they really need to go live the life of Riley, let them repay their debt to the people.

A very brief bit of Google-fu shows that in 2008, NHS specialists made between £36,807 and £70,126.

Funny you ignored the link right under that one which stated that

New figures showed that at least 410 took home hundreds of thousands in pay before tax and after expenses — up eight per cent on the 380 who earned more than £300,000 in 2007/08.

The report from the NHS Information Centre for 2008/09 revealed that average pay for an NHS dentist had reached £131,000 a year, up from £126,800 despite a spending squeeze elsewhere in the NHS. A total of 150 dentists earned between £275,000 and £300,000, while 130 earned between £250,000 and £275,000.

Overall, 5,540 dentists earned more than £100,000 a year.

Pay packets have grown since new contracts were brought in for dentists four years ago. About one in five dentists makes more than £100,000 thanks to the new deal, according to the NHS IC report.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/nhs-dentists-earning-over-300000-a-year-6504340.html

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Funny you ignored the link right under that one which stated that

New figures showed that at least 410 took home hundreds of thousands in pay before tax and after expenses — up eight per cent on the 380 who earned more than £300,000 in 2007/08.

The report from the NHS Information Centre for 2008/09 revealed that average pay for an NHS dentist had reached £131,000 a year, up from £126,800 despite a spending squeeze elsewhere in the NHS. A total of 150 dentists earned between £275,000 and £300,000, while 130 earned between £250,000 and £275,000.

Overall, 5,540 dentists earned more than £100,000 a year.

Pay packets have grown since new contracts were brought in for dentists four years ago. About one in five dentists makes more than £100,000 thanks to the new deal, according to the NHS IC report.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/nhs-dentists-earning-over-300000-a-year-6504340.html

I'll admit that's an absolutely criminal salary for British dentistry, but I wouldn't call it extremely well paid.

 Seaward wrote:

I'll admit that's an absolutely criminal salary for British dentistry, but I wouldn't call it extremely well paid.

450k isn't extremely well paid? For dentistry? For anything? In what world?!?!?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

I'll admit that's an absolutely criminal salary for British dentistry, but I wouldn't call it extremely well paid.

450k isn't extremely well paid? For dentistry? For anything? In what world?!?!?

I was referring to the average.

 Seaward wrote:

I'll admit that's an absolutely criminal salary for British dentistry, but I wouldn't call it extremely well paid.

The average wage in the UK is about 24k. You think 200-400k isn't very good?

Yeah, according to my google-fu, the average salary for a dentist in the US in 2010 was $159,510.00.

Source: http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/dentist/salary

An average of 131,000 GBP is, according to google, about $200,665.80.

200 grand isn't well paid?

 RatBot wrote:
Yeah, according to my google-fu, the average salary for a dentist in the US in 2010 was $159,510.00.

Source: http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/dentist/salary

An average of 131,000 GBP is, according to google, about $200,665.80.

200 grand isn't well paid?

And these are 'state money' dentists, private well to do practices are making far in excess of that.

Seriously, guys, never move to northern Virginia and get into consulting.