The NHS is rediculous - Page 10

garinda · 05-06-2007, 17:36

In 2004, U.S. hospitals charged patients without health insurance and those who paid for care out of their own pockets an average of 2.5 times more for services than fees paid by health insurers, and 3 times more than Medicare-allowable costs, a new study finds.

USA Today-Consumer Health News, Information and Resources Updated Daily-Health Insurance-Hospital Markups on Care Toughest on Poor: Study

It's a business.

Businesses don't care.

Businesses are there to make profits for their shareholders.

Thank God we have the NHS.

Eric · 05-06-2007, 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

Any organisation dependant on charity is in a rather precarious position though isn't it?

In general I would have to agree ... but, also in general, Americans are generous and compassionate; more so than many others in the world. Perhaps the system they have now works for them. The American concept of freedom, and what limits are placed on government are different from those in Britain, and they are definitely different from those in Canada. But this does not change the fact that as a people they are generous and compassionate, both at home and internationally. But I still maintain my opinion that in a wealthy nation all should have access to that wealth.

bullseyebarb · 05-06-2007, 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

In 2004, U.S. hospitals charged patients without health insurance and those who paid for care out of their own pockets an average of 2.5 times more for services than fees paid by health insurers, and 3 times more than Medicare-allowable costs, a new study finds.

As I said earlier.....the consumer is out of the mix. This skews everything. The government began the price fixing mess, with no regard for how much it cost a hospital or doctor to deliver a particular service. This then slopped over into the private insurance sector because hospitals and doctors were charging them a little more to make up for the losses. People who pay out of pocket often pay more because of this downward spiral. This tends to happen when you have a third party payer. In the case of your NHS, it manifests itself in shortages of equipment, specialists, etc., and waiting lists for patients.

garinda · 05-06-2007, 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

As I said earlier.....the consumer is out of the mix. This skews everything. The government began the price fixing mess, with no regard for how much it cost a hospital or doctor to deliver a particular service. This then slopped over into the private insurance sector because hospitals and doctors were charging them a little more to make up for the losses. People who pay out of pocket often pay more because of this downward spiral. This tends to happen when you have a third party payer. In the case of your NHS, it manifests itself in shortages of equipment, specialists, etc., and waiting lists for patients.

If you are poor in the States, you'd be waiting forever for the drugs that I'm on for Parkinson's Disease.

bullseyebarb · 05-06-2007, 18:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

In general I would have to agree ... but, also in general, Americans are generous and compassionate; more so than many others in the world. Perhaps the system they have now works for them. The American concept of freedom, and what limits are placed on government are different from those in Britain, and they are definitely different from those in Canada. But this does not change the fact that as a people they are generous and compassionate, both at home and internationally. But I still maintain my opinion that in a wealthy nation all should have access to that wealth.

Thanks for the kind remarks. I have to disagree with your last sentence, though. All wealth is earned by individuals and does not belong to the State. Most of us are not into collectivism down here as we have studied past experiments with same and duly noted that it doesn't work.

garinda · 05-06-2007, 18:35

'Merica's fine, just as long as you feel as frisky as a flea on a fat dog, but if you're feelin' lower than a well digger's heel, you'd better cut down on those fancy vittles, cus you'll have a mighty fine Doctor's bill to settle shortly.

Eric · 05-06-2007, 18:43

I do not agree that all wealth is earned by individuals, and certainly, some individuals "earn" their wealth illegally ... Conrad Black, a Canadian who seems to have aquired his business ethics by studying Enron, is a case in point. If a welfare state attempts anything, it tries to make sure that individuals have an opportunity to share in the national wealth ... to establish that level playing field that many in the states talk about. Not all citizens in the race of life (sorry about the cliche) begin from the starting line. Some start way back, and others, born with advantages, start somewhere near the finish line. Govt. funded health care is not collectivism, it is a way of insuring that all citizens have equal access to the best the health care system can offer. This, along with publically funded education, affirmative action programs, subsidies for day care, and federal transfer of funds (equalization payments) from tax revenues from wealthy provinces to the poorer provinces evens out the inequalities in the system.

And Canada is certainly not a collective ... our provinces have extensive political powers that the federal govt. cannot touch, mineral rights for example, and control over education. If anything, Canadians are natural Liberals. We like govts. who are fiscally responsible, yet socially generous. At the moment we have a minority govt. ... and this seems to be working out well. But none of our political parties, and they hold radically different views on most things, will tamper with the health care system. Even the Bloc Quebecois supports medicare and promotes federal transfer payments.

If what we have isn't working well, how does one explain the surging looney? Hitting par with the greenback is not too far in the future.

WillowTheWhisp · 05-06-2007, 19:15

I am not implying that Americans are not generous in their charitable donations. It doesn't change the facts that charitable donations are not a guaranteed income.

On a very simplistic level take for example Joe Bloggs who has a decent job and donates $200 a month to his pet charity. Joe has an accident or loses his job, is on a lower income and can no longer afford to pay his bills. Is his $200 monthly charitable donation going to be a priority?

bullseyebarb · 05-06-2007, 19:49

Dear Willow, one doesn't make charitable donations with the expectation of getting something in return, (beyond the joy of helping one's fellow man).

bullseyebarb · 05-06-2007, 20:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

If what we have isn't working well, how does one explain the surging looney? Hitting par with the greenback is not too far in the future.

You have a great housing market at the moment, plus good consumer spending and exports. Keep it up!

I consider my earnings to be my property, not that of the State. The Left is obsessed with equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity. Some people are smarter than others. They invent things. Take risks when they start a business. Use their God given talents well and invest their assets wisely. I have never bought into the class/wealth envy game. Remarkable really when you consider where I was raised.

By the way, did you ever read a series of articles in the Canadian National Post about the wonders of Cuban healthcare? I thought it quite ironic that Michael Moore went down there during the course of making his "Sicko" film. Michael Brazell Murray » Cuban Health Care has some interesting commentary on this, as well as other healthcare systems.

Eric · 05-06-2007, 20:07

My god, did I actually write "surging looney"? Now people may think all Canadians are insane!

Eric · 05-06-2007, 20:19

The earnings of Canadians are not the property of the state. But the majority of us agree, and we express this agreement consistently at the polls, that there should be a "social safety net." What we sometimes disagree on is the size of the mesh. I support Kingston General Hospital in their funding drives, I give to the United Way, and to the Kingston Humane Society, and the Hotel Dieu Hospital food bank blitzes. But, there has to be something more than personal charity. The Sisters of Providence of the Hotel Dieu spend lavishly on programs to help those in need in Kingston, but they also publically argue for government supported health care. They hold weekly vigils for the poor, urging the government by their example to spend more tax dollars on welfare, disability allowances, free prescriptions for all low income Canadians, subsidized daycare for single mothers etc. I don't however, see the good sisters as a radical vanguard for the socialist state. They are just good people who realized that private charity is not enough.

Stanaccy · 05-06-2007, 20:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stanaccy

Yes I read the link, although taking it seriously stopped when I read

"The moral code underlying Canada’s healthcare system can be inferred from how it is practiced. Everyone has free and equal access to healthcare providers (which naturally generates a lot of demand). Providers bill the government for services rendered. Government pays providers with the money it extorts via highly progressive taxation. Government has the power to restrict healthcare spending (which logically leads to long waiting lists and wait times)."

Sorry as soon as I read spin doctor speach like "extorts via highly progressive taxation" I sort of switch off. Especially as I read it, it seems to say "stuff the poor they can die even though we have the expertise to treat them."

I thought the US was a Christian country, or is like everything else you just choose the bits you like!!! What about the good samaritan? or the beatitudes? Or do they not fit in to righteous capitalism?

Oh and also just one thing, Cuba's life expectancy is about the same as the US so seems they are doing something right, regardless of how rich the country is.

I brought up the Cuban System earlier. Far from the unmitigated disister you seem to feel it is I think the stats speak for themselves. American health system versus complete disaster equals same life expectancy.

And how many more times is your GDP than Cuba's?

WillowTheWhisp · 05-06-2007, 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

Dear Willow, one doesn't make charitable donations with the expectation of getting something in return, (beyond the joy of helping one's fellow man).

My dear Barb, of course one does or they would not be charitable donations would they? But one cannot make charitable donations if one has fallen on hard times oneself can one? Have you misunderstood my post? Old Joe may very well be feeling just as charitable as ever he was but if he can't afford his own bills do you really expect him to carry on paying his charity donations? I stand by my original statement that dependancy on charity is a fragile existence. When people have less disposable income it's the non-essentials which they cut back on first.

Eric · 05-06-2007, 20:35

Cuba is a great country to visit, I was there a couple of years ago and hope to go next Feb. for a break from the Big Chill. In no way is anything in Cuba a complete diasaster. However, Cubans stood up to the Americans, not the ordinary Americans, but US businesses that had a vested interest in raping Cuba. They will never be forgiven. But for now, they have a health care system that works for the benefit of the people. I don't know if England recognizes the Cuban govt.. But if UK citizens are allowed to travel there, I would recommend it. It's clean, fun, safe, and, for the cigar smokers and rum drinkers, a mecca. And if you get sick, the hospitals are damn good.