Hospital fees rant

Quote: odiousgambit

as far as the UK system goes, it has its inevitable detractors



https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2018/10/01/u-k-s-healthcare-horror-stories-ought-to-curb-dems-enthusiasm-for-single-payer/#39d1b5c73099

Interesting. But I'd suggest that in the 4 to 1 ratio, that the denominator is different. Might it be that the US might have a larger proportion of urgent surgery candidates that just don't get the surgery but still die? Genuine question/suggestion.
I'm sure we have a far smaller proportion of our population that die ( or kill themselves ) because they can't afford life saving meds and treatment.

We certainly don't have a "what it costs be damned". All pols and the general public insist at every opportunity that big pharma and our 'Health Care trusts' strive for value for money. There are government bodies that do dictate which life saving meds are deemed too expensive to fall under NHS funding. Only the rich, or trialists get those..... But isn't that the case everywhere?

Does Bernie Sanders really advocate "(a) bill sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders would outlaw private insurance "? That sounds like a downright lie. If it's true it's a stupid policy. We don't outlaw private insurance for our wealthier folk. I cannot believe Sanders advocates that. That quote alone makes me think the Forbes article is propaganda.

I still remember eons ago when I was encouraged to take diabetes education classes .i was thrilled but when it got down to details, I asked "how much" and would not tolerate the "we will bill your insurance company" response. Even if we are getting crappy care, some of us still don't view it as a blank check to be squandered in a foolish or un-audited manner. It is NOT a "costs be damned" attitude on my part.

Quote: a Sanders quote, see link

[In an emailed statement]
Let us all be very clear about this. If you support Medicare for All, you have to be willing to end the greed of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. That means boldly transforming our dysfunctional system by ending the use of private health insurance, except to cover non-essential care like cosmetic surgeries.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-says-theres-no-middle-ground-on-eliminating-private-insurance

Quote: odiousgambit

Patients in British hospitals are four times more likely to die than in U.S. hospitals, according to an analysis of outcomes from 2,000 similar surgeries conducted by researchers from University College London and Columbia University in New York. Among the more severely ill patients, the disparity was worse; the sickest Brits were seven times more likely to die.

Maybe this could be solved with more toothbrushes.

Peridontal disease (Mouth and teeth) leads to higher occureences of heart disease. Brush more, die less.

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: a Sanders quote, see link

[In an emailed statement]
Let us all be very clear about this. If you support Medicare for All, you have to be willing to end the greed of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. That means boldly transforming our dysfunctional system by ending the use of private health insurance, except to cover non-essential care like cosmetic surgeries.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-says-theres-no-middle-ground-on-eliminating-private-insurance

Then I'll paraphrase the WashingtonExaminer * "Bernie sanders is a moron"
* I don't know how biased the WE is in its reporting, but the policy as described is way beyond even our 'liberal/socialist' reality.

The best of both worlds = Everyone gets enough: The rich can get more if they wish.
Bernie seems to be saying Everyone gets enough and to hell with the rich.

I perceive a certain amount of misreporting or extreme bias, so I'll go and seek out Bernies actual quotes.

the examiner is a bit biased

I found this as well, Politico I don't think is considered biased though some may think it leans left

Quote: link

[Medicare for All] A plan from Sen. Bernie Sanders ... would effectively eliminate the private health insurance sector, in favor of having the government pay for the nation's medical expenses for everything from primary care to dental services, long-term care and abortion.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/bernie-sanders/

Quote: OnceDear

don't get me wrong. It has flaws. O

LOLOLOLOL!!! Understatement of the year,,

Quote: OnceDear

That was a 2017 article from one of our lower quality newspapers.

Fake news, then? Try this:


https://www.bowelcanceruk.org.uk/news-and-blogs/campaigns-and-policy-blog/nhs-waiting-times-trends-shows-drastic-increase-in-delays-to-bowel-cancer-diagnostic-testing/

Quote: odiousgambit

the examiner is a bit biased

I found this as well, Politico I don't think is considered biased though some may think it leans left

Quote: link

[Medicare for All] A plan from Sen. Bernie Sanders ... would effectively eliminate the private health insurance sector, in favor of having the government pay for the nation's medical expenses for everything from primary care to dental services, long-term care and abortion.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/bernie-sanders/

I've found some sources that say that his proposal.... as well as current Canadian practice would eliminate private cover for those services offered by the state, but that Bernie would have all services provided by the state.
That has some justification in eliminating 'queue jumping. However, I contend that the UK has the best of both worlds. If I want to pay to go private for, say a hernia operation, then I can, and yes I get preferential treatment, somewhat outside the NHS state service. If I don't go private, then I still get a generally acceptable service which MAY occur in an NHS facility or may use the same private hospital in a contracted out basis.
Anyhow... I contend for now that I prefer the UK system to that in the US, and Canada is closer to ours than it is to the US.
Incidentally, Our NHS covers 'basic' dental care and eye care, but most dental and eyecare is paid for. No-one would really want to choose NHS specs, for example and if one has an income, one has to contribute to the cost for dental care. Prescriptions here are about $10 for a month's worth of any required medication until age 60, when they cease to be charged for.
Poor people on any of the many state benefits get prescriptions, and condoms, without charge. It doesn't stop us going to private clinics or pharmacies if we wish to pay.
Our NHS does exist within a whole host of 'social services' which come out of the same purse. State pension and certain 'housing benefits' also come out of the same revenue scheme. That does complicate matters.

May I ask: What is the value and eligibility of US and Canadian State Pension ( I think it's called social security over there )
In the UK, we get between £129 ( $158 ) and £168 ( $206 ) per week from age 67 ( though we are in a state of transition )

Any private pension is extra on top of that. No contribution into the National Insurance fund required if that's the only income.

Quote: Evenbob

Fake news, then? Try this:


https://www.bowelcanceruk.org.uk/news-and-blogs/campaigns-and-policy-blog/nhs-waiting-times-trends-shows-drastic-increase-in-delays-to-bowel-cancer-diagnostic-testing/

At age 55, I was invited to a endoscopy test without any preconditions or symptoms. Were you? Was your financially poor neighbour? I also got hearing aids and an eye test at no charge.

You like your system. keep it.