National healthcare debate?

Posted in Health Insurance - Free Quotes

I really, really, really don’t understand this debate. The main argument seems to be ‘national healthcare will be shit’. But, why can’t you have both state, and private health care? Meaning, no one has to die because they can’t afford/get insurance, and those who want a premium service can pay for insurance.

This is the system we have in the uk, and it’s excellent. I’ve never had any problems with the nhs; I can phone my doctor at any time, and get a house call if the symptoms warrant it. I can get an appointment the same day if I phone up in the morning, no matter the symptoms. And, I can get full treatment, and drugs whenever I need them, and very quickly.

Basically, I don;t understand the ‘national health service would be slow and shit, and not as good as private…’ argument for two reasons:

1. It wouldn’t be, if it was anything like the uk’s. And, the uk’s lags far behind many others.
2. Private health care would still exist for those that wanted it.

What’s the problem with national healthcare? If it’s taxes, why can’t you route them from your military budget?

Liked this article? Read another similar article.

Stumble! for WP

Sphere: Related Content

Posted: October 20th, 2009 at 1:01 am |

Print This Post

Help others find this article at:
del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit Google Technorati

The Patriot Says:
October 20th, 2009 at 1:02 am

First of all, too many people do not know that Obama is not going to bring in universal healthcare. He wants to make insurance more available to all.

Second, of course universal health-cover sucks. That is why we in Western Europe have it. We think, hmm, our healthcare system sucks. I know, lets keep it. I guess that is the same with Japan and Canada as well.

FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet.

FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids aged under five than western European countries with universal health coverage.

That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage.

Banker Says:
October 20th, 2009 at 1:02 am

This is America, where everyone wants to come,
can
you say the same for Britain? The reasons that answer that question are the same reasons that we in the US of A don’t want Government in our health care.

Inspired Says:
October 20th, 2009 at 1:02 am

If you do your homework on the countries that have national health care, people die because of the govt run healthcare.

I have read numerous articles on govt rationing at the end of life care. Also, people denied certain cancer treatments. People dying of heart problems while waiting for certain procedures.

Obviously, there has to be a better solution. Too bad conrads co-op idea didn’t get much attention because other democrats want to ram this through before the 2010 elections!

__Synn__ Says:
October 20th, 2009 at 1:02 am

The problem is that the health care industry as a whole in America is not well understood.

Our system is one in which employers pay the bulk of health care costs through insurance premiums. The employers then recoup a portion of that money in the form of tax benefits from the government.

The problem with this system is that in America… you can not be turned away from an emergency room. This means that the uninsured will still get treatment. Hospitals, in order to earn a profit (remember… our whole industry is for profit), substantially raises the costs for everything to reflect their inability to charge all their patients. The health insurance companies then proceed to pass this cost down to the consumer (which in this case is the business and you as the user) in the form of high premiums.

What you have is a system where everyone is passing on costs. Even the best private health care coverage (like the plan I have and am very happy with) is more expensive than a purely market price would dictate as it incorporates part of the cost of the uninsured.

People in America that are listening to only the talking points thinks that the creation of a government insurance option means the government controls the entire health system. This is not true. The government simply controls who gets paid and how much (by leveraging its massive size in order to procure deep discounts a la Prescription Medicare Coverage).

People feel that this leaves the health care decisions purely in the hands of the government as opposed to the doctor. As the system stands right now, the decision is not in the hands of your doctor. The system is in the hands of a private insurance company.

I would like to think that the government bureaucrat you speak to on the phone gains nothing by denying your claim. The private insurance company on the other hand does actually realize a profit by denying your claims.

The fear going through the business community is two fold. First, there is a fear among many in the business world that if we don’t do anything about rising health care costs, we simply can’t afford to keep offering up medical insurance. Its too high of a "tax" on businesses and our foreign competitors don’t have to pay it back in their own countries.

The second fear is that if we create a "public option", we will effectively drive out the private insurers. This would be a negative as a competing public and private option would ensure the best range of choices and force both sides to become competitive.

Right now, the debate is where the left says "we need a public option paid for by tax dollars" and the right says "we need nothing". This is a shame as there is room for a great compromise….

-Create a public option to get the public onboard
-Limit the damages available for medical malpractice lawsuits to bring the doctors and hospitals on board
-Steepen the tax benefits for businesses offering up health care plans for their employees
-Reduce state by state regulations allowing private insurers to operate across borders

This would be overall an expensive solution but one that would set the stage to limit the increase in health care costs which will eventually ravage our economy.

LadyMoon Says:
October 20th, 2009 at 1:02 am

I’m completely in agreement with you. I’m sick of all the misinformation being spouted by ignorant, ill-informed Yanks about the British National Health Service.

FACT: We have both National AND private healthcare in the UK. Those who can afford it can use the private system. Everyone can use the National system. Ergo noone goes with medical care when they need it.

FACT: NOONE "dies of cancer in the UK waiting for an operation". My mum was diagnosed with cancer last year and got an operation (on the NHS) within 3 weeks of her diagnosis. Her cancer is now clear. I guess you couldn’t say the same for Americans whose insurance companies refuse to pay out for their treatment eh?

FACT: I have never had a problem with NHS service. Some people complain about waiting lists etc. But you ALWAYS have the option to go private. Perhaps the moaners who hate the NHS should give up their Sky TV and new car and take out BUPA cover instead?

I would much much rather live in the UK, where people are afforded the dignity of health care and help when they need it, than the selfish-money and greed-driven US. I’m sorry if that bursts your bubble, American friends, who’ve been brought up to beleive that everyone in the world is "desperate" to go to America, but you couldn’t entice me there for all the money in the world! I’m happy here in the UK.

Banker (substitute the "B" for a "W") - "This is America, where everyone wants to come,
can
you say the same for Britain? "

Umm, have you seen the crowds of illegals trying to get through the channel tunnel to get into the UK? There are millions trying to get into the UK so yes I’d say everyone DOES want to come to this country.

Beatnick Says:
October 20th, 2009 at 1:02 am

There are all kinds of healthcare plans in the private sector, but the problem is they are not affordable for the lower paid sector and that is what Obama in the USA is trying to address in this debate about public healthcare.

Something like 60% of all Americans do not have any healthcare insurance. That’s a lot of people, when you consider the UK pop is now (I think) 300-million.

From my perspective here in UK - we have a Welfare State put in place by the Labour Government of 1945-1950 which includes the NHS (National Health Service).

How is the Welfare State including the NHS paid for?

Every single citizen pays NI-Contributions (National Insurance Contributions) which is deduced from their salary weekly or monthly.

Once a citzen (women 60 men 65) reaches retirement age, they no longer pay NI-Contribs.

What does the citzen get in return for these NI-Contributions - free healthcare, a whole raft of benefits including child benefit, unemployment benefit etc. And at the end of their working life (age 60 for women and 65 for men) every citizen gets a UK State Pension.

In addition to the above -every citzen is encouraged to save for their retirement and old age. People here in UK can buy private medical insurance if they wish.

There is NO opt out from the National Insurance Scheme - everyone pays, like it or not.

Right across Europe all EU countries have their own independent state operated healthcare and welfare etc.

You can find out more about the UK NHS as the link below.

History of the NHS - UK
http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/NHSTimeline.aspx

The problem for Americans is that in order to have a US-Wide State healthcare system, it means accepting a degree of Socialism - exctly what Americans received with open arms from Gordon Brown who invented a way of savings the banks from a fate worse than death. You simply buy the banks with the people’s money.

You could do the same with the healthcare system and buy it all up and then it will be owned by the people, for the people and of the people.

Now for something completely different. . .

Here’s an interesting thing I found out today - nothing to do with US Healthcare but more about the Revolution -my God the people of London rioting in support of it back then - blimey - no one told me this at school back in the 1950s - makes you feel a bit proud really. Well at least we tried anyway.

William Blake - a quite walk. . .
One year into his time at the Royal Academy Blake was walking up Great Queen Street on his way to Basire’s shop. He was then swept up by a mob supporting the American Revolution, which rampaged along the street and attacked Newgate Prison. Blake seemed to have no plan to join what later became known as the Gordon Riots, but he seemed to be caught in the passion of the moment, and apparently joined in the riot with great enthusiasm. He hated authority of all kinds, and would have been glad to support a cause such as American independence. Ironically it was in response to the Gordon Riots that a national police force was organised in Britain. So next time you see a policeman walking authoritatively about, you might think of the Gordon Riots in which Blake took part, following his instinctive passion to oppose authority. You could visit the Clink Prison Museum in Southwark, site of the famous Clink Prison, which like Newgate, was stormed during the Gordon Riots.

So now you know!

Ancient Thinker Says:
October 20th, 2009 at 1:02 am

They think it’s socialism, but that’s what Rush tells them.
They think it’ll never work, but that’s what their told.

"I’m not paying for your health-care" - shows their TRUE colours. THEY. DON’T. CARE. It’s not that it’s socialism (False), It’s not that it doesn’t work (False).

They are greedy, selfish, despicable, self-righteous pond-scum that would sooner kill their family than give a poor man money

Polprav Says:
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:12 am

Hello from Russia!
Can I quote a post in your blog with the link to you?

Dbxxubjm Says:
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 pm

comment2 Play That Funky Music qkavj Free Scat Porn 46462 Usda Grad School 630 Slimquick Reviews =((( Richmond Escorts 39584 Winnie Pooh tpkpff Sea Fan 827 Female Victorian Corporal Punishment 52382 Coke Rewards 887834 Refurbished Dell Notebook Computers nrgswy Night Hawk Custom izlmdk

APPEHESGREDDY Says:
November 1st, 2009 at 11:37 pm

Other variant is possible also

Vimax Pills Says:
November 16th, 2009 at 10:55 am

In 2 months of taking Vimax Pills I managed to gain 1.5 inches! My sexual desire increased greatly as well as my erections became fuller and longer lasting…

Thyld Says:
November 16th, 2009 at 6:49 pm

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!, planet ink tattoo, sparrow tattoo flash, lucky lady tattoo shop-phoenix arizona, cross tattoo templates, tattoo killeen, jack skellington tattoo, cute design cat tattoo, caduceus tattoo, tattoo stencils, red sox tattoo, celtic sun tattoo, hieroglyphic tattoo,