This is true, the lines are long. Of course, if you have a full-time job, you're entitled to some private practice care (like scans), but not the most expensive ones and not for a longer period. If you only rely on public healthcare, you have to wait. There's no conflict-of-interest medicine nonsense, though. You can freely use both public and private for acquiring prescriptions, as well as treatment, or specific services like gynecological. Then there're insurances, like the accident insurance I get from being a member of the Teacher's Union which either entirely covers or helps cover healthcare costs, depending on the amount. It's a fine system despite some of its flaws, and I couldn't really imagine not having that privilege. Of course, if I wound up living in the US, I'd have a job in any case 'cause I couldn't emigrate without a good job, which would provide an insurance anyway.
I'm curious to know where you getting your information from. I live in Northern Ireland, part of the UK, and in my experience this is simply not true. Of the many examples I could cite, my elderly grandmother (90 years old) underwent two cataract operations in the last year of her life. She was chair bound, unable to walk, and on an oxygen machine due to her organs starting to fail her, yet the NHS decided she was worth the cost of surgery, even knowing her condition was terminal. This was just two years ago, and the economic situation is better now than then.
I wonder if some of that sort of misconception is due to scaremongering by US media (not that certain sections of the British media *cough*Daily Mail are much better).
As I in my earlier post it's not even remotely true for me either. I was born with coloboma, and the NHS saved me from going blind, my parents never paid a penny for it either. To the NHS I owe my quality of life. Which is why I'm mystified when I see people attacking it. I remember seeing a YouTube clip, I wish I could find it now, of some guy on Fox News who said hospitals in the UK are full of starving, dying people who are kicked by nurses when they cry too loudly. I swear to god that is true, and it's utter rubbish. America has a funny relationship with anything that seems a step toward Socialism, and I am willing to bet most people who are passionately anti-Socialist don't understand it at all.
There are valid reasons to complain about certain aspects of the NHS (waiting times being an obvious one), but the hatred for it from some sections of the US media (and the Daily Mail, as I said above) borders on the insane, not to mention some of the outright lies that get told.
@Lemon flavoured Aye... I've often wondered about that myself. All I know is what myself and others have experienced at the NHS's expense, and I tell you, I'm extremely grateful for the treatment I've received. I've never really encountered the refusal of treatment, or even the lengthy queues others speak of. I've known people who have been diagnosed as having breast cancer, undergone surgery etc. and the NHS has footed the bill for breast reconstruction, not a life saving act, but a life affirming one for those who need it. Yes, I believe the model could be better funded and approved upon, but I am quite happy to put my life in the NHS's hands.
That's right. Create a society without problems and I'm sure you'd win yourself a Nobel prize, and I'd rather live in a society that looks after the little guy, not just the guy in the big manor house who owns several multinational businesses.
I researched this about three years ago. I can't recall the link I was looking at, but here's a relevant one about the eye surgery problem- http://www.college-optometrists.org/en/college/news/index.cfm/Cataract%202012 Hopefully everyone's denial means they've fixed the problem?? I do hope so.
And I see Canada IS working on stopping their ban on private purchase of care though it definitely has been a problem: Source Does anyone know how many provinces still have bans on private purchase of care? In my opinion, there is nothing more grievous than having the right to care refused by all available avenues.
Take a look at the article you linked and you'll find this: This doesn't mean the problem was with the concept of a nationalized health care, this means the problem was a couple of criminally inept and incompetent PCTs, or 'Primary Care Trusts'. These were stopped from treating the public in 2011, because they didn't work, and finally abolished in 2013 after the restructuring of the NHS. It was basically just something that was tried and scrapped; they had their own budgets and set their own priorities for medicare.
Ah. Like I said I was doing heavy research about health systems in 2011- before they abolished these. The article I read most definitely made it sound like the reason was the cost-benefit rationing by NICE: Being an American makes it hard for me to distinguish the true ins-and-outs of other healthcare systems because I have no firsthand experience. I was lead to believe the decision not to give care was tied to this ratio. The original link was NOT from some crazy-right-wing source though. It went in-depth between several health-care systems and listed the pros and cons of universal care vs private. As you can see, I spent way too much time researching this stuff. I really ought to write or draw instead of waste so much of my time. The rationing based on price really puts me off- I admit. But universal healthcare by necessity means price controls, and price controls result in rationing (in the form of reduced care, access to care, or longer waits). I am very anti-price control.
I haven't done research on this, so don't challenge me to produce it. But my mother, living in Canada, had a brain aneurysm burst in 1997. She lived on a small island off the BC coast and had to be helicoptered to a hospital in Vancouver, where she had life-saving brain surgery that very night. Maybe there are some procedures for which Canadian patients have to wait, but in emergency situations, they are taken care of immediately. The health care system in Canada works - it's not perfect (whose is?) but it works. Canadians, on average, have a higher life expectancy than Americans. The infant mortality rate is lower. Yet Americans pay nearly twice as much for health case as Canadians on a per capita basis.
Fair enough. In the UK you do have access to private practice, and that is one thing that isn't likely to disappear fast. The ins and outs of the NHS can be very confusing, even some of our politicians don't seem to understand it, but trust me on this - it's a good thing. You don't have to use it, but it's there; and sometimes you do have to pay for things like glasses, they are not free on an NHS prescription. It's just there to make sure that in your darkest days there is someone out there who will help you. It's far from perfect too, it can and does fail people, I don't deny that, but it works. It's been one of the great victories of the UK labour movement.
It's my firm belief that this is tied directly to the law that makes hospitals care for anyone regardless of ability to pay. It was passed in 1986. http://hitcoffee.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/HealthCareCostChart.jpg This shows that healthcare costs start outpacing inflation just as this law was passed. Another price control. Force hospitals to eat the costs, and they get passed onto the rest of the consumers, resulting in higher and higher costs as fewer and fewer are able to pay. The ACA also dropped their reimbursements for hospitals for treating uninsured patients because it assumed they'd expand medicaid (they tried to force them to), but that didn't happen in many states, resulting in hospitals closing around the country right when we need MORE access to care. Not only that, the whole premise for the individual mandate was not based on the Constitution, but the argument that Democrats wanted to get rid of the "free-rider program". It was supposed to reduce ER usage. In fact, it increased on average. Price controls make things worse in my opinion. They forced individuals to buy a product, and it had the opposite effect. And costs are still rising.
Absolutely agreed. With all the emphasis these past 6 years of taking care of the 'little guy' who can't or won't work, is often a generational welfare recipient, has immigrated illegally more and more, and comprises the 'downtrodden' tiers of society, it's a shock the US has any money left at all. (I'm not trying to be optimistic here, I know about the 17 trillion dollar debt. LOL). There will always be people who need care, but the problem comes when care becomes a government-supported career that DEMANDS the system take care of their families no matter what, no matter who it costs and WHO pays. My husband is a machinist and I work part time for the local school district. We accept no form of welfare. Every year our insurance goes up and takes a bigger bite of the paycheck, and once the ACA kicks in the costs will go through the roof. While nanny state programs give every conceivable benefit to the people who don't work, they routinely (and conveniently) forget that the money has to come from somewhere. In this country the 'somewhere' is the Bank of the Middle Class. With all the taxes I now pay to support programs that benefit people who never replenish the public coffers it's a wonder my family hasn't gone bankrupt. Our property taxes over the years have gone up more than 300%. Our sales taxes are up, insurance costs, food /gas/oil--you name it---and there is nowhere to take that money from but the grocery and household budget. I've got 3 teenaged boys that I would not be able to feed were it not for a garden, chickens, and hunting licenses, and I pay for college educations that would be free if we lived off the state that (since we don't) we need massive loans for. Like Artist369 says, something is very wrong with this picture. You are punished for being responsible and financially independent in a country that thrives on independence . There have been corporations here that have made a killing at society's expense, but without successful business to pay taxes and employ people like my husband who in turn support the pet programs of welfare politicians this country as we know it would collapse. I work with students who get removed from public schools because of medical and disciplinary reasons. The vast majority are welfare recipients living in free housing with free food, free health care, free education, and access to every program they need at any time for any reason. Some of them really are unable to support themselves, but 99% of the ones whose homes I visit daily don't work because they just don't want to, and it is MUCH more profitable on a financial basis to stay home. They've got cell phones, flatscreens, I-pads, laptops, while my smaller family (that works!) can afford none of these things. This is absolutely intolerable to me, and I also see no upside to 'nanny state' policies---especially for people who work every day.
A serious rhetorical question, is this really that much of a bad thing? The western European model isn't doing too badly, in fact Germany is one of the most productive and happy societies on earth. I'm not looking for a response, just giving you something to think about.
Collapse of the country would be a very bad thing. It means angry rioters, and a domino effect that spreads across the world. Our economy goes down, we won't go down alone. Healthy US business=healthy world economy. Demonizing and punishing US businesses= weaker world economy.
Revolutionary actions are more about the change in the way people think, rather than people in the streets with red flags and AK-47s. I was more interested in the words 'as we know it' than the word 'collapse', because the end of a country 'as we know it' is not always a bad thing.
You mean the collapse of our free society into a socialist state? Personally, I think the transitions from the latter to the former are the real victories. To answer your original question: yes, that would be a VERY bad thing. But I shan't go into it. I try to stay away from the debate room for a reason, and I think I am toeing that line too far as it is.
Nope, not Socialism specifically. More what I was trying to suggest is there are more than two ways of organizing an economy. I find things are only restricted if you limit yourself to one of two choices. Besides, Socialist societies can be free. Fair enough, to be honest I'm not particularly interested in going much further.
This is an example of how language can be used to distort thought. Point A: We (in the USA) do not exactly have a free society. We're kind of awful people, so we don't deserve one (now I'm distorting thought with language). Point B: A transition from wherever we are into a "socialist" state is not necessarily a collapse. Freedom is good, but that doesn't mean socialism (nobody understands that word, by the way) is bad. The two are not incompatible. If we are the richest country in the world, we should, as a moral imperative, have universal health care and free education for everybody. Our children should be fed and our veterans housed and cared for. What is a nation's wealth good for if it doesn't benefit its citizens?
Anyone who wants a Socialist country that is free, look at Portugal, which has Socialism literally written into it's constitution.
Lennox quoted another user who used that term, and HE made the correlation that a revolutionary collapse of thought could be a good thing. I did not introduce the term. How do you suggest our country feed and house everyone in the nation? I am just curious. The only feasible way to do this is to reduce the standard of living for everyone in the country in the form of massive tax increases or add on more crippling debt. Once inflation rises due the president's loose monetary prices, our interest payments will only increase, compounding the problem. The president himself has stated that our current level of spending is unsustainable- that the stimulus was a immediate fix to a long-term problem that would eventually need addressing. Our wealth is an illusion. We are so far in debt, we will not be able to climb out. It's only a matter of time before there are drastic, painful cuts to our social programs. I advocate for cutting back now, so as not to put all of us on the street later. It's the humane thing to do- to be mindful of future generations who will bear the burdens of our spending today. We both desire to be humane, but we both think of it from opposite ends of the spectrum. If we keep adding to the debt, people will be out on the streets fifty years from now with SS and Medicare a long-lost dream of better years that were squandered. Think the 1930s on steroids- people standing in long lines for soup and taping their shoes together. I am not joking, if we default, this WILL happen. Sure, it's nice to pretend that 2+2 ought to equal 50, and that out of the goodness of our hearts, we out to see to everyone's needs and comforts. But the hard truth is that the math just doesn't add up. We can wring our hands and say it ought to , but at the end of the day 2+2 is only 4. We have trilliions in unfunded liabilities, and the non-partisan CBO says that if we do not change something, we will experience a debt crisis. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbo-issues-fresh-long-term-debt-warning-2013-09-17 When the CBO says to reign it in, how can we possible add more? Not even the President would advocate for that.
