The rest of the industrialized world has universal health care

[Ban Hammer 13,282]

very interesting story. i disagree with a national health care system as i know my payments for such would be very high to make up for those who are "economically disadvanted" pc slang for too f'ing lazy to get a job.

[Heracles 417]

steve, you can always join the military for 20 years and not have to worry about medical

Because that would entail Steve actually doing something for the country, rather than criticizing it..

[homesick_american 1]

very interesting story. i disagree with a national health care system as i know my payments for such would be very high to make up for those who are "economically disadvanted" pc slang for too f'ing lazy to get a job.

The thing is, taxes here aren't actually all that high. The British love to gripe about taxes, but in actuality they have some of the lowest taxes in Europe and I pay a lower percentage of my income in taxes here than I did in the US. However, I make a LOT LESS money here than I did in the US because wages here are pathetically stingy.

The problem with public services in the UK is there is simply not enough money to fund them to the level that people want. Sure, we COULD have healthcare systems like what they have in France and Germany (constantly held up as an example of how to do things right compared to the NHS) but they would not be free at the point of use (the NHS is) and they would cost a lot more in taxes. With wages as low as they are and the cost of living as high as it is, I don't think a lot of people here could shoulder a larger tax burden. As it is, council taxes and interest rates going up are bankrupting some people. Doesn't take much when you run a constant overdraft anyway. I don't have an overdraft; I have thousands of pounds in the bank. I only manage that by going without almost every concievable luxury. Like haircuts. Like new clothes. Like brand-name products. You get the idea. Plus, 'making do' is practically the national pasttime. I have actually seen British people argue with me that dishwashers turn people into p*ssies and that not having things like dishwahers, dryers, etc. builds character. Pardon me while I DIE LAUGHING!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

very interesting story. i disagree with a national health care system as i know my payments for such would be very high to make up for those who are "economically disadvanted" pc slang for too f'ing lazy to get a job.

I'm not so sure, it could hardly be said that there's no waste in the private system or that people get value for money for what they're buying - like I said, I certainly didn't.

The simple fact remains - that the only advantage here as I see it (and this is all based on which health provider you opt for) is convenience. My exploratory surgery cost more than my year's tax deductions in Britain... That's fcuking scary!

I just got a half inch thick booklet from my new employer about various health plans I can opt, and at this point its a hard slog making sense of it all - considering that paying more money won't necessarily guarantee a better quality of service.

While homesick_american story is not untypical of the NHS, people in my wife's immediate family have almost died as a result of a) having no health insurance, or B) as a result of unqualified medical insurance staff making medical decisions about treatment in place of a doctor. That makes me extremely uneasy.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If you can afford good medical care, the quality in the US is stellar.

Afford? If a doctor cares to see you. I remember quite well how almost impossible it was to find an OB/GYN that was going to care for my wife for the last trimester of her pregnancy after we moved from one state to another when she was about 6 months along. Health insurance wasn't an issue. Most doc's just happened to make it a rule that they don't take pregnant women as new patients if they're past week 12. Stellar care my patoot.

*shrug* You'd have the same problem here.

In a public health care system? They'd refuse to provide care based on risk? I doubt it.

[homesick_american 1]

If you can afford good medical care, the quality in the US is stellar.

Afford? If a doctor cares to see you. I remember quite well how almost impossible it was to find an OB/GYN that was going to care for my wife for the last trimester of her pregnancy after we moved from one state to another when she was about 6 months along. Health insurance wasn't an issue. Most doc's just happened to make it a rule that they don't take pregnant women as new patients if they're past week 12. Stellar care my patoot.

*shrug* You'd have the same problem here.

In a public health care system? They'd refuse to provide care based on risk? I doubt it.

Believe it or don't. I used to know a midwife who wouldn't take on new patients halfway through a pregnancy. But hey, I'm just full of ###### because I'm against one country's implementation of socialized medicine.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

very interesting story. i disagree with a national health care system as i know my payments for such would be very high to make up for those who are "economically disadvanted" pc slang for too f'ing lazy to get a job.

Charles, what's the national unemployment rate? And how many people are under/uninsured? You do the math. Wait...you don't have to...just look up the statistics on how many working Americans don't have insurance...and of course we don't want to enforce employers to provide insurance for them. But go ahead and call them f'ing lazy....tsk, tsk.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

very interesting story. i disagree with a national health care system as i know my payments for such would be very high to make up for those who are "economically disadvanted" pc slang for too f'ing lazy to get a job.

Charles, what's the national unemployment rate? And how many people are under/uninsured? You do the math. Wait...you don't have to...just look up the statistics on how many working Americans don't have insurance...and of course we don't want to enforce employers to provide insurance for them. But go ahead and call them f'ing lazy....tsk, tsk.

My sister in law in California was unemployed for 6 months after her car died (couldn't afford another one). Ended up losing her job (and health benefits) as a result. Anyway she developed a urinary infection which turned into a major (life-threatening) kidney infection. When she ended up with a major fever, she got rushed to the hospital - only to be told that a few more hours (if the fever was any higher) would have been fatal.

It says something very disturbing to me when people are so scared of the system that they would risk their own lives rather than go for treatment and risk potential bankruptcy.

[Ban Hammer 13,282]

very interesting story. i disagree with a national health care system as i know my payments for such would be very high to make up for those who are "economically disadvanted" pc slang for too f'ing lazy to get a job.

Charles, what's the national unemployment rate? And how many people are under/uninsured? You do the math. Wait...you don't have to...just look up the statistics on how many working Americans don't have insurance...and of course we don't want to enforce employers to provide insurance for them. But go ahead and call them f'ing lazy....tsk, tsk.

steven, how many do you personally know that don't have a job but are capable of having one? i know quite a few. do you think i want to support their dead butts because they are lazy? and yes, they are f'ing lazy!

if you think your current health care costs are something now, wait till you get what you want. then you'll sqawk even more. so be careful what you wish for.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Have there actually been any objective studies of the cost of socialised healthcare - or at least a version of it over here? And I'm not talking about studies carried out by groups or individuals with a vested interest in protecting corporate interests.

Edited September 24, 2006 by erekose

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Have there actually been any objective studies of the cost of socialised healthcare - or at least a version of it over here? And I'm not talking about studies carried out by groups or individuals with a vested interest in protecting corporate interests.

Yes. I know that the State of Mass. had two independent firms look into the savings and costs of a single payer system and both firms findings showed that it would save money....sorry, I'll try to find the study and post it here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Have there actually been any objective studies of the cost of socialised healthcare - or at least a version of it over here? And I'm not talking about studies carried out by groups or individuals with a vested interest in protecting corporate interests.

Yes. I know that the State of Mass. had two independent firms look into the savings and costs of a single payer system and both firms findings showed that it would save money....sorry, I'll try to find the study and post it here.

It also depends on which model you opt for - not all socialised systems are the same.

At the very least I'm all for curtailing the "free market" aspect of the private system which lets insurers and healthcare providers get away with a massive conflict of interest at the patient's expense.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

very interesting story. i disagree with a national health care system as i know my payments for such would be very high to make up for those who are "economically disadvanted" pc slang for too f'ing lazy to get a job.

Charles, what's the national unemployment rate? And how many people are under/uninsured? You do the math. Wait...you don't have to...just look up the statistics on how many working Americans don't have insurance...and of course we don't want to enforce employers to provide insurance for them. But go ahead and call them f'ing lazy....tsk, tsk.

steven, how many do you personally know that don't have a job but are capable of having one? i know quite a few. do you think i want to support their dead butts because they are lazy? and yes, they are f'ing lazy!

if you think your current health care costs are something now, wait till you get what you want. then you'll sqawk even more. so be careful what you wish for.

What independent studies have shown is that it would actually save money. As for paying for those who are too lazy to work...Charles, give an example of someone you know that is purposely not working because they are too lazy...and again, look at the unemployment rate in this country - even if one were to assume that everyone unemployed is too lazy to work, it's a very low percentage of people you'd have to pay for their healthcare which would be offset by the money saved with national healthcare. Not only that, you do know that your premiums help pay for others, right? Why should you have to pay for a smoker's healthcare costs? Or someone who's overweight because of poor diet choices? Or someone who doesn't wear a helmet or seatbelt? Don't just stop with lazy people who don't work, isolate yourself from everyone who doesn't take their health as serious as you do.

[Ban Hammer 13,282]

What independent studies have shown is that it would actually save money. As for paying for those who are too lazy to work...Charles, give an example of someone you know that is purposely not working because they are too lazy...and again, look at the unemployment rate in this country - even if one were to assume that everyone unemployed is too lazy to work, it's a very low percentage of people you'd have to pay for their healthcare which would be offset by the money saved with national healthcare. Not only that, you do know that your premiums help pay for others, right? Why should you have to pay for a smoker's healthcare costs? Or someone who's overweight because of poor diet choices? Or someone who doesn't wear a helmet or seatbelt? Don't just stop with lazy people who don't work, isolate yourself from everyone who doesn't take their health as serious as you do.

highlighted part - my next door neighbor's daughter and son. both in their 30's, both would rather milk the system rather than work. and no, their father does not condone their actions.

yes i'm fully aware that my premiums for such would help pay for others. which is exactly my point. you want to help someone else with my money. how altruistic of you! you should get a nobel peace prize! if you want to go help someone with your money, go knock yourself out. just keep your hands out of my wallet while you have such feelings of generosity.

the ones you list - smoking, poor diet choice, no helmet or seatbelt. all personal choices made by someone that should have zero impact on my wallet, as these are choices made by those individuals. but i know, you also think it's a great idea to sue auto makers even though driving a car isn't a right.

[incanada1234 0]

Can't we all just agree that both systems suck? We've all heard enough stories now that it's quite obvious neither private or public health care is working out.

Anyone got a solution?