Health Care the World Over

[slackkeymike]

Here in the USA, we are told that the "universal health care" plans in the far more advanced societies ;) (we are told this) are superior to what we have at home. We are told that "free health care" works efficiently. We are told that in these advanced systems, no one goes without healthcare. We are told that no one pays out of pocket.

So, please, if you are in a country that has "free health care", please explain how it is better than what we have in the USA. Please give examples.

Mike

[European]

This is how the health care system in Germany works (it does quite well)

"Healthcare is funded by a statutory contribution system that ensures free healthcare for all via sickness funds. Insurance payments are based on a percentage of income, divided between employee and employer. Healthcare insurance in Germany is divided between statutory and private schemes. The statutory health insurance, the so-called “Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung” (GKV), occupies a central position in the Healthcare system in the Federal Republic of Germany. About 90 % of the population are covered by the statutory health insurance which is compulsory for all who earn less than 3862,50 € (that would be about 4841$)before tax. Private healthcare schemes can either provide to complete health service for those who opt out for the GKV or top-up cover for those who remain within it."

Germany has a universal multi-payer system with two main types of health insurance: "State health insurance" (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) known as sickness funds and "Private" (Private Krankenversicherung)
I'm in the State health insurance and I have to say that I often noticed that we have to wait longer @ the doctor than the Private ones.Anyway our system is quite fine.

and in France:
The entire population must pay compulsory health insurance. The insurers are non-profit independent agencies not linked to the State. A premium is deducted from all employees' pay automatically. An employee pays 0.75% of salary to this insurance, and the employer pays an amount to the value of 12.8% of the employee's salary. Those earning less than 6,600 € (8,872$) per year do not make health insurance payments.



I find both systems very good (not only I do it's a fact) but the Frensh is better although I belive that the German healthcare system is the oldest in the world.

I hope America will have a system like those as soon as possible...!!!

[slackkeymike]

What about Canada? We here in the States hear so much about Canada's system. anybody?

[slackkeymike]

I'm in the State health insurance and I have to say that I often noticed that we have to wait longer @ the doctor than the Private ones.Anyway our system is quite fine.


A couple of years ago, I decided to mention to my GP Doctor that my mother died from a Berry Aneurysm which is quite hereditary. I asked if it would make sense to get scanned for this. He had me in the scanning office that very evening, and the very next day I had the results (all clear).

Can you expect that level of service in France, Germany, Canada?

If not, what?

Mike

[Amallek]

I work with a very international group of educated people. All of them but me have national health care in one form or another. None of them would trade their system for the US system. They are convinced it works.

I ask about this issue of access, and they do not consider it any worse than the problem most of us have trying to make a doctors appointment. They don't run these things like DMV. Obviously they found ways to put incentives in place for good service - creating internal competition within the system.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of universal health care. How can anyone possibly be against the concept that everyone gets the care they need. What is fair is to argue about how the service is delivered. How can we maintain the same quality and access that we currently enjoy, and hopefully at a lower cost. Do we need more doctors, nurses and hospitals? Great, more employment. Do we need competition and standards - absolutely. So please join the debate - help congress find a solution that works.

It is not helpful, and incredibly selfish, to fight to deny health care to millions because you are happy with your situation. Let's keep you happy and cover millions more. It does not even need to cost that much. Poor, uninsured still get medical service now, but they get it in the most expensive way - in the emergency room after the situation is critical. And you pay for that, in your insurance payments or your companies contribution.

[European]

I totally agree with you Amallek!


couple of years ago, I decided to mention to my GP Doctor that my mother died from a Berry Aneurysm which is quite hereditary. I asked if it would make sense to get scanned for this. He had me in the scanning office that very evening, and the very next day I had the results (all clear).

Can you expect that level of service in France, Germany, Canada?



Well of course!As soon as the doctor has the results you get them!
Also I want to mention that some immunizations are for free and there are a lot of preventive checkups you can go to.

[peter45]

I am an American who has been helping set up a new company (a subsidiary) in the Czech Republic.

One of the Czech employees recently injured his knee playing football (soccer).
I don’t know anything about the system, but he feels he is getting good care. They performed surgery immediately, and he is getting physical therapy.
He was just telling me this morning how impressed he is with the therapist. He feels that he was able to get off the crutches quite quickly.

[slackkeymike]

I totally agree with you Amallek!





Well of course!As soon as the doctor has the results you get them!
Also I want to mention that some immunizations are for free and there are a lot of preventive checkups you can go to.

Thats not what I meant. Would you get in to the scanning service that quickly?

[whig]

We do have universal health care for everyone over 65, and 21% of the budget goes to cover it.

[Voxpopuli]

We do have universal health care for everyone over 65, and 21% of the budget goes to cover it.

Yes, we do. Which is why the strong aversion to national healthcare is kind of silly. We do not have a private health care system. We don't have a public healthcare system. Instead we have a very expensive and inefficient hybrid system.

Personally, I prefer a true private system but imo either system would be better than the one we have now.

[whig]

In a Galaxy far far away:


As recently as the 1960s, low-cost health insurance was available to virtually everyone in America - including people with existing medical problems. Doctors made house calls. A hospital stay cost only a few days' pay. Charity hospitals were available to take care of families who could not afford to pay for healthcare.
Since then the federal government has increasingly intervened through Medicare, Medicaid, the HMO Act and tens of thousands of regulations on doctors, hospitals and health-insurance companies.

[slackkeymike]

Well, I still want to know in European countries (and Canada) how it works. Here in the states, we are told over and over that in those countries there are long lines, long waits, red tape, and poor service with "free" health care. I want to also know what percentage of you income is paid in federal (provincial) taxes.

Mike

[whig]

I have dual citizenship, Canadian/US. My experience has been that both systems from a patients standpoint are equal. The US just being far more expensive for good medical coverage. I have had MRI's in both countries and in both cases I had my results within a week. On a side note My father is a Canadian Doctor, and would not practice in the states if his life depended on it.

My income taxes in Canada were 3-5% higher than I pay in the US, but I did not make as much money there, that's why my wife and I are here. The 3-5% tax increase represents less money, then what I pay for American Health Insurance.

As stated in my previous post, I agree with Voxpopuli, the U.S. has to go one way or the other---No Hybrid System. I would rather see a completely private system as well, but I don't see the medicare/medicaid recipients voting for that, and they represent the largest Constituency.

[European]

Well, I still want to know in European countries (and Canada) how it works. Here in the states, we are told over and over that in those countries there are long lines, long waits, red tape, and poor service with "free" health care. I want to also know what percentage of you income is paid in federal (provincial) taxes.

Mike


Well I didn't see any long lines or long waits here:eh:

Does this help you or have I understood you wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg



Would you get in to the scanning service that quickly?


:arrow:Yeah,sure.

[Amallek]

We do have universal health care for everyone over 65, and 21% of the budget goes to cover it.

Heard many seniors asking for a return to a private system?

[Amallek]

Well, I still want to know in European countries (and Canada) how it works. Here in the states, we are told over and over that in those countries there are long lines, long waits, red tape, and poor service with "free" health care. I want to also know what percentage of you income is paid in federal (provincial) taxes.

Mike

It works like it works here. You call a doctor, make an appointment and you get treated. Except you don't pay. If you have an urgent issue you get urgent care. If your problem is not urgent you get scheduled, just like here. The stories of European doctors clinics operating like the LA DMV are simply urban myths.

[slackkeymike]

I am confused. This is a topic that should create intense debate... but it has not. Either libs and cons alike are hoping for the government plan, or nobody is paying attention. Back in Clinton's admin, you would have thought a new war between the States had broken out.

There are exactly 100 pennies in a dollar (duh). Health care is a money "sink". It not like R&D in that it can help expand the GDP. If one pays 30 pennies on the dollar in taxes, then they will pay more if health care becomes an entitlement. Sure, they will pay less "out of pocket" but it will just end up as higher taxes. And if the plan is "progressive" it will mean a certain percentage pay nothing for medical services. Once this gets entrenched, there will be no backing out. Next thing it will be gasoline. Yes, everyone should have free gas. Then homes. Free homes. Then free bigger homes. And free education. And food!! Free food!! Nobody should be denied food, right?

And one day, you will wake up and realize that the government controls everything because it "gives" you everything.

Hell of a price to pay.

Mike

[Henry Wallace]

Hi, I come from a universal health care country New Zealand and now live in another Australia. Funny how you people don't really understand economics. It matters little whether you are paying up front, through insurance premiums, through higher prices for goods when employers pay or taxes somehow it is you who pays.
Under our system we can go to a doctor any time and not pay a cent.
Hospitals are free and if you want and can afford it you take out private insurance that is subsidised by the govt directly and through tax rebates.

I post on other boards and on one of them a friend had been hit by a falling tree. She didn't want to go to the doctor even though she was having dizzy spells and her neck hurt because a) she couldn't afford it b) the wait was hours and hours. c0 the free clinic right around the corner was full.

I'll take my system any day thanx.

[Old_Mil]

What about Canada? We here in the States hear so much about Canada's system. anybody?

http://cupe.ca/health-care/a44eb6bdce7277

"Election of new CMA president signals increased push for private health care"

[Canadian Jane]

http://cupe.ca/health-care/a44eb6bdce7277

"Election of new CMA president signals increased push for private health care"


Except the link you've provided only proves that the doctors want private health care - not the patients. The CMA is the Canadian Medical Association - not an advocate for the people.

I've lived in Canada all my life - and have not personally had a bad experience with health care, nor have any of my family or close friends. I'm not saying they don't happen - I'm saying it's not prevalent.

I've known people who've have major procedures (such as quadruple valve replacement, liver transplants and cancer treatments) and they were all happy with the care they received.

I've always received emergency care when needed, and always received surgery when needed. It's sometimes hard to find a family doctor (you usually have to wait about 6 months) - but in the meantime you can see ANY doctor for your check-ups, or when you have a problem.

I don't have to worry about whether a procedure is covered or not under my policies, and if I want to pay for minor procedures (such as MRIs, CT scans, hip, knee, ankle replacement, etc) then I can do so.

If I need heart surgery or cancer treatments - we have some of the best doctors in the world here too. The son of a close friend of mine had major heart surgery last year - his doctor, formerly from the Mayo Clinic, was fantastic.

The hospitals are clean, the staff are professional, and the access has only been a significant problem in the last 5 years (which could be attributed to many things - with the most significant being the dramatic increase in population in our province in that time because of a smoking hot economy and an abundance of jobs, the aging population and fewer people training in the medical fields).

I really don't care if Americans want to keep their current system - it's YOUR system and it doesn't affect me.

What bothers me, however, is the continual urban myths that Americans throw out about how bad Canada's system is.

If you haven't used it - how do you know? Because you've seen one or two articles created by people with vested interests in eliminating the public system?

There's just as many articles talking about how horrible the American system is too. It's not factual - it's sensational.

The truth of the matter is that neither system (American or Canadian) is perfect.

They're just different.

You will pay one way or another (either in taxes or in insurance premiums).

Regardless of which system you choose, there is no avoiding the fact that it will require more management and control - because the aging population and the increase in available procedures are making health care costs prohibitive, and if you don't do something different, you will lose it all.

Debate the differences by all means.

But trying to find a monster under the bed isn't helping you make an informed judgment. If anything, it's stopping you from doing so.

[slackkeymike]

All good points. But I do wonder why less folks are training for the Canadian Medical system. If there is demand, then there should be supply... unless new folks are not feeling motivated to enter medical schools. Why would that be? Higher paying jobs elsewhere? Less headaches? I think you need to explain why the CMA is experiencing a shortage of doctors.

BTW, read in the news today that Natasha Richardson (who had a skiing accident in Canada) is being flown all the way to the USA for medical treatment. She can afford the best care... why leave Canada for the US?

Someone else said (about which country, I am nnot sure) that if you want to buy private insurance, you can. But if medical care is free, why would someone offer medical insurance, and why would someone opt for it?

I also agree about the American VA hospitals. Its been a real tragedy here. Obama just told the VA that they need to use private insurers for Vets. To the tune of 540 Billion. If our third system (which is like the Birtish model) is broken, then why does Obama want to push that same or similar system on the rest of us here?


Mike

[janer]

In a Galaxy far far away:


As recently as the 1960s, low-cost health insurance was available to virtually everyone in America - including people with existing medical problems. Doctors made house calls. A hospital stay cost only a few days' pay. Charity hospitals were available to take care of families who could not afford to pay for healthcare.
Since then the federal government has increasingly intervened through Medicare, Medicaid, the HMO Act and tens of thousands of regulations on doctors, hospitals and health-insurance companies.

Exactly. It was called "major medical" or "hospitalization" which covered what insurance should cover - those excessive costs which the average citizen could not afford. It did not cover routine visits, vaccines, ER visits - people didn't expect their car insurance to cover gas and tune ups, but somehow were persuaded that medical insurance should cover every encounter with a doctor.
Look to those countries that boast of their taxpayer supported health insurance and you see one common underlying theme - doctor shortages. They exist in Germany, in France, in Canada, in Japan. There are a higher percentage of doctors over 55 than there were even five years ago - in countries where the government supported doctors may retire on a pension at age 60-65 - and a much lower percentage of doctors under the age of 35. That means that the seasoned doctors are "aging out" or retiring, and there are not enough younger people choosing medicine as a profession. When that happens, you have one of two results: fewer doctors, because the talented candidate doesn't see a 10 year post-graduate education as a worthwhile investment in the profession; worse doctors, because the top tier candidate is opting for a profession that entails a shorter educational investment, and offers lower risk and higher job satisfaction.

[slackkeymike]

Well, I for one cannot for one moment believe that goverment run medical systems will be good at all. When hospitals no longer have to compete, then it WILL be just like DMV here.

[GoodQuestion]

Exactly. It was called "major medical" or "hospitalization" which covered what insurance should cover - those excessive costs which the average citizen could not afford. It did not cover routine visits, vaccines, ER visits - people didn't expect their car insurance to cover gas and tune ups, but somehow were persuaded that medical insurance should cover every encounter with a doctor.
Look to those countries that boast of their taxpayer supported health insurance and you see one common underlying theme - doctor shortages. They exist in Germany, in France, in Canada, in Japan. There are a higher percentage of doctors over 55 than there were even five years ago - in countries where the government supported doctors may retire on a pension at age 60-65 - and a much lower percentage of doctors under the age of 35. That means that the seasoned doctors are "aging out" or retiring, and there are not enough younger people choosing medicine as a profession. When that happens, you have one of two results: fewer doctors, because the talented candidate doesn't see a 10 year post-graduate education as a worthwhile investment in the profession; worse doctors, because the top tier candidate is opting for a profession that entails a shorter educational investment, and offers lower risk and higher job satisfaction.

The US is already facing doctor shortages...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbT8Kh8Elvmr3DWrEyXgaBWXUoagD96SBK8O1

[Canadian Jane]

All good points. But I do wonder why less folks are training for the Canadian Medical system. If there is demand, then there should be supply... unless new folks are not feeling motivated to enter medical schools. Why would that be? Higher paying jobs elsewhere? Less headaches? I think you need to explain why the CMA is experiencing a shortage of doctors.

BTW, read in the news today that Natasha Richardson (who had a skiing accident in Canada) is being flown all the way to the USA for medical treatment. She can afford the best care... why leave Canada for the US?

Someone else said (about which country, I am nnot sure) that if you want to buy private insurance, you can. But if medical care is free, why would someone offer medical insurance, and why would someone opt for it?


Less folks are training for medical professions everywhere - not just in Canada. (And you don't train for the "Canadian Medical System" - you go to university nursing programs or become a medical physican, like anywhere else)

Why don't more train? I don't think there's as many individuals these days who choose careers because they have a passion for the work. You have to work weekends and nights, it's a high-stress job, while it pays pretty well - it won't make you rich quick.

As for Richardson travelling to New York - I think it was likely more to have her closer to her family in the U.S. - not because she wasn't getting good care.

[janer]

The US is already facing doctor shortages...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbT8Kh8Elvmr3DWrEyXgaBWXUoagD96SBK8O1

Yes. The US is not in the throes of serious doctor shortages right now, but we are headed the way of countries that are. The article points to expansion of medical education at the same time it addresses looming shortages in the primary fields. The primary fields are family practice, pediatrics and geriatrics. You might include general internal medicine in this. Those are the fields that have the lowest reimbursement, and have seen the most immediate impact of government mandates on practice, billing, compensation, but as medicine becomes increasingly socialized, you will start to see more doctors retiring early and fewer talented kids who want to go into medicine.
The shortage of specialists may be addressed somewhat - though not adequately or permanently - by way of nurse practitioners; that is, by substituting a medical doctor's care with that of a practitioner who has lesser training and is limited in what he/she can do. But when you are talking about specialities and surgery, you don't have an equivalent option. You need doctors. In the case of neurosurgery, you need doctors who may be 15 years in training, and students who undertake it and stick it out do not want to be government managed drones, and the rest don't even stick it out.

[shunted]

Well, I for one cannot for one moment believe that goverment run medical systems will be good at all. When hospitals no longer have to compete, then it WILL be just like DMV here.

Do you subscribe to the same sort of belief with regard to national defense? There is no competition for the Department of the Army. Do you believe that the Army sucks? Do you believe the FBI is horrible? Should we privatize the police departments and the fire departments?

[shunted]

.
.
.
.
.
Regardless of which system you choose, there is no avoiding the fact that it will require more management and control - because the aging population and the increase in available procedures are making health care costs prohibitive, and if you don't do something different, you will lose it all.

Debate the differences by all means.

But trying to find a monster under the bed isn't helping you make an informed judgment. If anything, it's stopping you from doing so.

Nice response.

One thing that truly mystifies me is that almost every conservative Christian I know is opposed to national health care and they don't have any proposal to adequately provide health care to the millions (in the U.S.) currently without it.

[jmb6]

I would advise you to watch "Sick in America" a 20/20 special on You tube. It breaks down the myths and misconceptions of our medical profession.

It does not champion our current system, but it is not for Universal care either.

I agree with the OP that universal Care is not the best way to go. Our health care will eventually be like the public school system we have in the US. And it isn't pretty.

Competition and Personal Involvement are the keys to reducing cost and improving service. NOT nationalization.

[Thumbs_Up]

Yeah, well I have a cousin who along with his wife would disagree. After the military he got a job with a company in Germany. He told me the government health care program reminded him of what people went through in Workman's comp. Long Waiting periods for approval on procedures etc....When he walked in (having healthcare via a private plan of the company he worked for) he was taken right away and treated very well...the Dr's didn't worry about getting paid. So they have had a very different experience and noted friends of theirs who were jealous.


I work with a very international group of educated people. All of them but me have national health care in one form or another. None of them would trade their system for the US system. They are convinced it works.

I ask about this issue of access, and they do not consider it any worse than the problem most of us have trying to make a doctors appointment. They don't run these things like DMV. Obviously they found ways to put incentives in place for good service - creating internal competition within the system.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of universal health care. How can anyone possibly be against the concept that everyone gets the care they need. What is fair is to argue about how the service is delivered. How can we maintain the same quality and access that we currently enjoy, and hopefully at a lower cost. Do we need more doctors, nurses and hospitals? Great, more employment. Do we need competition and standards - absolutely. So please join the debate - help congress find a solution that works.

It is not helpful, and incredibly selfish, to fight to deny health care to millions because you are happy with your situation. Let's keep you happy and cover millions more. It does not even need to cost that much. Poor, uninsured still get medical service now, but they get it in the most expensive way - in the emergency room after the situation is critical. And you pay for that, in your insurance payments or your companies contribution.

[BillyBobUSA]

Nice response.

One thing that truly mystifies me is that almost every conservative Christian I know is opposed to national health care and they don't have any proposal to adequately provide health care to the millions (in the U.S.) currently without it.


I am a Christian and all my friends say I am conservative and I am for a national health insurance system that is similar to what Obama has proposed.

We dont have to nationalise our health care industry to give everyone affordable health care.

We can simply taking existing medical group insurance selections and extend them to all of America. We then have the government pay for those who cant afford it on a proportionate basis and drop Medicade and Medicare entirely.

Should pay for itself with Medicaid and Medicare dropped, the second and third biggest items on our federal budget.

[shunted]

I am a Christian and all my friends say I am conservative and I am for a national health insurance system that is similar to what Obama has proposed.

We dont have to nationalise our health care industry to give everyone affordable health care.

We can simply taking existing medical group insurance selections and extend them to all of America. We then have the government pay for those who cant afford it on a proportionate basis and drop Medicade and Medicare entirely.

Should pay for itself with Medicaid and Medicare dropped, the second and third biggest items on our federal budget.

I'm glad to finally hear from a conservative Christian that does not overlook those who are without health coverage. I don't know what the best way to provide coverage for all is but I strongly support universal care. It doesn't have to be government run or a nationalized system.

My problem with private health insurance is that there is an economic incentive for the companies to deny care. Currently they hire people whose job it is to find out ways to deny people proper care. It's immoral and quite disgusting. That would need to be fixed under your insurance plan but other than this I would support your idea.

[peter45]

I'm glad to finally hear from a conservative Christian that does not overlook those who are without health coverage. I don't know what the best way to provide coverage for all is but I strongly support universal care. It doesn't have to be government run or a nationalized system.

My problem with private health insurance is that there is an economic incentive for the companies to deny care. Currently they hire people whose job it is to find out ways to deny people proper care. It's immoral and quite disgusting. That would need to be fixed under your insurance plan but other than this I would support your idea.


Denying care may be one issue,

But analyzing care should be done. Meaning, is the care to be provided the one that is recommended?

Recently, I have read reports that people with back pain have the same long term pain experiences if they do not have back surgery, as those that do have the surgery.

So why couldn’t the government analyze what works, and what doesn’t (maybe even using insurance company records), and advise the public?

If the government did the analysis, the insurance companies would not be accused of malfeasance, and if surgery really wasn’t necessary most of the time, money would be saved.

The doctors would object, meaning that the “conservatives” would be informed that they object, but there would be the possibility of saving money in the system.

[mike_tucker44]

socialized medicine is not the answer.why is insurance high?because hospital,medical supplies,and doctors fees are high.freeze the costs and insurance will go down.then it will be affordable.the reason its not being considered is because the ama lobby is so strong.we shop around for cloths,cars and homes but when a town like ours has only one or two hospitals theres no competition therefore no need to reduce cost.in bigger cities theres so much price fixing the cost stays high.the problem is one pays a new price for an old system.but the cost goes up daily.i have more to say but its a limited forum.

[shunted]

Denying care may be one issue,

But analyzing care should be done. Meaning, is the care to be provided the one that is recommended?

Recently, I have read reports that people with back pain have the same long term pain experiences if they do not have back surgery, as those that do have the surgery.

So why couldn’t the government analyze what works, and what doesn’t (maybe even using insurance company records), and advise the public?

If the government did the analysis, the insurance companies would not be accused of malfeasance, and if surgery really wasn’t necessary most of the time, money would be saved.

The doctors would object, meaning that the “conservatives” would be informed that they object, but there would be the possibility of saving money in the system.

I think the country as a whole needs to analyze the health care industry and decide what it is we really want and then pursue the best means of achieving this goal. Anything that works I'm in favor of.

[shunted]

socialized medicine is not the answer.

Why? Socialized national defense appears to be the answer. We have socialized police protection and fire protection. Why is socialized militarism good but socialized healing bad?

[historynut]

[QUOTE=peter45;51157381]Recently, I have read reports that people with back pain have the same long term pain experiences if they do not have back surgery, as those that do have the surgery.[QUOTE]

It's the amount of pain that you suffer that back surgery can reduce. Yes long term you will get the pain back.


[QUOTE=peter45;51157381]So why couldn’t the government analyze what works, and what doesn’t (maybe even using insurance company records), and advise the public?[QUOTE]

Problem is what works on one person does not work on another. What worked on me only works 20% of the time. So if you analyze what works I may not have had it done, after all it does not work most of the time.

[Crying Eagle]

Are we not learning a lesson as to what happens when government gets involved in private lives. If we cut taxes on corporate america, and encourage companies to provide health insurance on all employees it would be acheivable. If companies were not burdened with high taxes, they would be able to provide jobs and provide benefits. If insurance fraud was not so rampant, health insurance benefits would not be so high. The managing of health care needs to start with the insurance and medical industries partnering together to control costs. National health care is not the answer. This is a system that requires balance and rewards. Give corporate america an additional health care tax cut incentive, and you will see more companies willingly provide low cost benefits to their employees that is cost effective. The taxpayer does not need to carry the burden of nationalized heath care because it is a no win situation for private sector.

[Kathi52]

Okay guys and gals, I just wanted to jump on and say once again that I am a spinal disorders/chronic pain patient before I get started. I am a retired federal employee and took FEHBP (Federal Employees Health Benefits Program) into retirement and am grateful I have it. It is or was not an "Entitlement" it is part of a "Benefits Package".

Two days ago I was reading an article on the Fedsmith Website where it states, that for now, the FEHBP will NOT be expanded to include the uninsured. Instead, and as the article states, FEHBP may be used as a "model" for healthcare reform. I don't have a problem with that. The FEHBP should NEVER be opened to the uninsured as it would not be fair to those who paid into during the careers and has the potential to create a rise in premiums. Remember we are paying these premiums out of our pensions.

Sooo...I am going to assume, at least for now, that the Obama Administration will more than likely try to tailor some kind of plan similar to it. If that is the case and from what I have gleaned so far, Uncle Sam will NOT be paying a portion as they do for the Fed Emps. Of course, that could change. I wish I had more detailed info. on this but as well all know there is no plan in place yet. But I am going to guess that the uninsured will have to buy into these private plans and perhaps at a reduced rate...just not sure.

My whole point really is...private insurance and CHOICE should remain in place. And I know Obama has said that if you like your current plan(s), you may keep them. I also know that NARFE is working hard on behalf of the federal retirees. Anyway, I am rambling. But I would look to see the Obama Administration devise a plan similar to the FEHBP...again, just not sure how it will work. But I will say this much...they need to take the time to really hash this thing out. The FEHBP is very convoluted unless you are familiar with it.

[mike_tucker44]

look,the ama,says they can regulate themselves.isn't that like putting the prisoners in charge of the prison.show me one example where deregulation saved a company.in fact its driven most of them near bankruptcy.the current economic problem was caused by the lack of regulation.we can't depend on any company to regulate themselves.the lack of regulation in the ama drives prices through the roof.hospitals and doctors believe they are guaranteed to be millionaires.they dictate health care prices and we have to not question there bills.pharmacutical companies over charge hospitals hospitals overcharge patients doctors dictate there wages.there used to be 3 hospitals here one was a county hospital.it was driven out not because of lack of competion but because everyone refused to pay for care.if you make it free it will be taken advantage of.but that doesn't excuse the overcharges for care by the other two.i have had mri's in three different hospitals and the cost was different at each.make sense? not to me it doesn't.next time i come to this site i will tell a true story .that happened in this town.

[historynut]

the current economic problem was caused by the lack of regulation.
So the fact that the government required loan companies to give high risk loans to people that couldn't pay them back so lack of regulation. To me it's too much regulation, if they had let the loan companies decide who it was safe to lend to (like credit unions were) there would have been less trouble now.

we can't depend on any company to regulate themselves.
Why not they do it all the time

the lack of regulation in the ama drives prices through the roof.hospitals and doctors believe they are guaranteed to be millionaires.they dictate health care prices and we have to not question there bills.
What about the rules placed on them by the government.



pharmacutical companies over charge hospitals hospitals overcharge patients doctors dictate there wages.there used to be 3 hospitals here one was a county hospital.it was driven out not because of lack of competion but because everyone refused to pay for care.if you make it free it will be taken advantage of.but that doesn't excuse the overcharges for care by the other two.i have had mri's in three different hospitals and the cost was different at each.make sense? not to me it doesn't.next time i come to this site i will tell a true story .that happened in this town.
I think you hit on the point on why hospitals overcharge. When they take care of someone for free the other people going to that hospital have to pay for the free treatment. The hospital that gives lots of free treatment has to charge the other people more. As for why the free treatment, the law says if someones life may (may, not is) be in danger you have to treat them.

[shunted]

So the fact that the government required loan companies to give high risk loans to people that couldn't pay them back so lack of regulation.

The government didn't require loan companies to give high risk loans to people that couldn't pay them back.

[SonsofLiberty]

I work with a very international group of educated people. All of them but me have national health care in one form or another. None of them would trade their system for the US system. They are convinced it works.

I ask about this issue of access, and they do not consider it any worse than the problem most of us have trying to make a doctors appointment. They don't run these things like DMV. Obviously they found ways to put incentives in place for good service - creating internal competition within the system.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of universal health care. How can anyone possibly be against the concept that everyone gets the care they need. What is fair is to argue about how the service is delivered. How can we maintain the same quality and access that we currently enjoy, and hopefully at a lower cost. Do we need more doctors, nurses and hospitals? Great, more employment. Do we need competition and standards - absolutely. So please join the debate - help congress find a solution that works.

It is not helpful, and incredibly selfish, to fight to deny health care to millions because you are happy with your situation. Let's keep you happy and cover millions more. It does not even need to cost that much. Poor, uninsured still get medical service now, but they get it in the most expensive way - in the emergency room after the situation is critical. And you pay for that, in your insurance payments or your companies contribution.

it's incredibly selfish to not want people to use the power of government to take from one to give to another?

[ConnieB]

I'm in the State health insurance and I have to say that I often noticed that we have to wait longer @ the doctor than the Private ones.Anyway our system is quite fine.

and in France:
The entire population must pay compulsory health insurance. The insurers are non-profit independent agencies not linked to the State. A premium is deducted from all employees' pay automatically. An employee pays 0.75% of salary to this insurance, and the employer pays an amount to the value of 12.8% of the employee's salary. Those earning less than 6,600 € (8,872$) per year do not make health insurance payments.

You think waiting longer for a doctor is ok???? Sorry, but I don't think it is. When I need to see my physician, I want to see him as soon as possible and not have to wait longer because I'm on a social health care system. The USA already have that, its called Medicaid.

Also, I took that figure of 0.75% of salary that is paid in France, and my husband pays 20 dollars less then those people in France do, so why would I want to go to a social health care when we're saving money now, plus I'm sure I'm getting in to see my physician sooner too.

You want to decrease the cost of medical care...go after the unnecessary lawsuits that happen on a daily basis which increases the cost of insurance for each physician which increases the cost we have to pay for his services.

You want to decrease the cost of medical care, stop the physicians from performing unnecessary diagnosis test which will save us money along with saving the insurances money.

You want to decrease the cost of medical especially drug cost...how about stopping the unnecessary advertising of these drugs, the free handouts from the companies and so on.....

Going to a universal health care system is not the answer...all that will happen is our taxes will go sky high, medical care will decrease, and waiting times for procedures will increase....what good does that do?

[Wilhelm Scream]

Going to a universal health care system is not the answer...all that will happen is our taxes will go sky high, medical care will decrease, and waiting times for procedures will increase....what good does that do?

People who could not otherwise afford medical insurance could get adequate medical care.

[F_Rat-46]

[quote=ConnieB;51337951]You think waiting longer for a doctor is ok???? Sorry, but I don't think it is. When I need to see my physician, I want to see him as soon as possible and not have to wait longer because I'm on a social health care system. The USA already have that, its called Medicaid.

Also, I took that figure of 0.75% of salary that is paid in France, and my husband pays 20 dollars less then those people in France do, so why would I want to go to a social health care when we're saving money now, plus I'm sure I'm getting in to see my physician sooner too.

You want to decrease the cost of medical care...go after the unnecessary lawsuits that happen on a daily basis which increases the cost of insurance for each physician which increases the cost we have to pay for his services.

You want to decrease the cost of medical care, stop the physicians from performing unnecessary diagnosis test which will save us money along with saving the insurances money.

You want to decrease the cost of medical especially drug cost...how about stopping the unnecessary advertising of these drugs, the free handouts from the companies and so on.....

Going to a universal health care system is not the answer...all that will happen is our taxes will go sky high, medical care will decrease, and waiting times for procedures will increase....what good does that do?[/quote/]

I believe if lawsuits are decreased, then the unnecessary tests will be also, since most doctors run these tests to avoid the lawsuit in the first place.

[shunted]

[quote=ConnieB;51337951]You think waiting longer for a doctor is ok???? Sorry, but I don't think it is. When I need to see my physician, I want to see him as soon as possible and not have to wait longer because I'm on a social health care system. The USA already have that, its called Medicaid.

Also, I took that figure of 0.75% of salary that is paid in France, and my husband pays 20 dollars less then those people in France do, so why would I want to go to a social health care when we're saving money now, plus I'm sure I'm getting in to see my physician sooner too.

You want to decrease the cost of medical care...go after the unnecessary lawsuits that happen on a daily basis which increases the cost of insurance for each physician which increases the cost we have to pay for his services.

You want to decrease the cost of medical care, stop the physicians from performing unnecessary diagnosis test which will save us money along with saving the insurances money.

You want to decrease the cost of medical especially drug cost...how about stopping the unnecessary advertising of these drugs, the free handouts from the companies and so on.....

Going to a universal health care system is not the answer...all that will happen is our taxes will go sky high, medical care will decrease, and waiting times for procedures will increase....what good does that do?[/quote/]

I believe if lawsuits are decreased, then the unnecessary tests will be also, since most doctors run these tests to avoid the lawsuit in the first place.

Malpractice insurance companies win most of the suits brought against doctors. There is a pervasive myth that lawsuits are what cause medical costs to increase so much.

Unnecessary tests are run because they are profitable to clinics and doctors.

[johnr]

Americans who say private health care is the best fail to look at the fine print in their Insurance policies.

All have a life time limit of costs (mine was one million $$) after that you are on your own Jack as per pre-existing conditions.

One in five Americans who are going through bankrupcies, it is due to medical expenses.

If you are laid off you may get Cobra for 18 months (very expensive) after 18 months you are on your own.

You will not get medical insurance,even if you can afford it, if you have a pre-existing condition.

Needless to say those countries that have national Health do not subject their people to these problems.

[historynut]

Americans who say private health care is the best fail to look at the fine print in their Insurance policies.

All have a life time limit of costs (mine was one million $$) after that you are on your own Jack as per pre-existing conditions.

You can get insurance for costs over one million $$ at a very low cost (since few people use it). My Dad enrolled me in it when I was a kid.


You will not get medical insurance,even if you can afford it, if you have a pre-existing condition.
I have never had a problem (bad back, brain trumor) getting insurance but the pre-existing condition would not be covered for the first 6 to 12 months.
One thing I did was if both were working was get insurance at both places. It did cost a little more (at most places it only cost a little more to add the spouse) but both would stay covered if one was laid off.

Needless to say those countries that have national Health do not subject their people to these problems.
I only know one person from outside the US that had a pre-existing condition. He was thinking about going back to France after he retired but found he would not be covered for the first year.

[janer]

This sad article - "Did Natasha Richardson Have to Die" - expresses very well the gap that exists in high end care in the Canadian system vs the US system:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31180
And this second article about Britain's national health care:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31173

Interesting because one gives a picture of how socialized medicine fails in the area of high end medicine, and the second gives an unhappy portrait of how it fails at the routine primary and hospital based end. I suppose the only way it does work is if you don't get sick, don't require urgent care and don't need to see a doctor.

[slackkeymike]

Do you subscribe to the same sort of belief with regard to national defense? There is no competition for the Department of the Army. Do you believe that the Army sucks? Do you believe the FBI is horrible? Should we privatize the police departments and the fire departments?

We are talking about PERSONAL SERVICE. You do not get that at the DMV. And the only time the Army has to deal in personal service is when its kicking its CUSTOMER'S BUTT.

What a DUMB argument. The Army, Navy, etc al ROCK at their jobs.

[slackkeymike]

Look, I want everybody in the US to have excellent health care. As it stands, EVERONE has access to health care in the US, even illegal immigrants. What the govenrment wants is for every one to be CARE free in this regard. When I was in high school, if I wanted to achieve what my parents achieved, I had to go on to college and work hard at it. Or start my own business.

When the government "gives" it all away... free..., then what the hell does a person have to work hard for? Why would they have to improve their situation, and thus the situation of our country? Hmmm? That is why other countries have stagnated or declined. Cradle to grave everything. No need to improve. No need to work hard. Just get yourself born.

Some major mortality rates in cancer are higher in countries (UK, Germany, etc) with free health care. Why? Cause your health care sucks. You just do not know it yet. I spose if I were recieving something for free, I would be hard pressed to dis it here also.

The US is the only Super Power left in the world. And its because our system works. Where our system does not work is where the socialists have thrown monkey wrenches into the system. After they do that they say "look, US health care does not work". Its ALL BS.

[LJB1031]

socialized medicine is not the answer.why is insurance high?because hospital,medical supplies,and doctors fees are high.freeze the costs and insurance will go down.then it will be affordable.the reason its not being considered is because the ama lobby is so strong.we shop around for cloths,cars and homes but when a town like ours has only one or two hospitals theres no competition therefore no need to reduce cost.in bigger cities theres so much price fixing the cost stays high.the problem is one pays a new price for an old system.but the cost goes up daily.i have more to say but its a limited forum.
The fees may be high but what you may not know is how much insurance actually pays. I had a procedure last year where the hospital billed about $84,000 to my insurance. They were paid about 1/3 of that amount. Medicare and medicaid typically only pay about 1/10. The hospital must accept these payments as "paid in full" if they wish to keep treating these patients. They still have to pay all of the people who work in the hospital, utilities, taxes (if they are for profit) suppliers, who typically increase their prices 2 - 3% a year, while still being able to invest in capital and provide charity care. ER's can't turn anyone away, regardless of the patient's ability to pay. Hospital stays are paid based on the diagnosis so if your illness or injury costs the hospital $100,000 but the insurance company says that for that diagnosis, they will only pay $20,000, the hospital has to eat that cost.
Price freezes never work. The only thing that would do is force hospitals to close and/or not take the uninsured.
You should know what you are talking about before you make these comments.

[shunted]

We are talking about PERSONAL SERVICE. You do not get that at the DMV. And the only time the Army has to deal in personal service is when its kicking its CUSTOMER'S BUTT.

What a DUMB argument. The Army, Navy, etc al ROCK at their jobs.

You said:

socialized medicine is not the answer.

I asked questions on why socialized defense is OK but not socialized medicine. You haven't adequately answered the question. It's not a dumb argument it's just a question.

It is interesting that you say the military - a government program - rocks at its job but you appear to have the belief that government could not possibly rock at providing health care. You have yet to state why this is so. It's good, though, that you recognize that government is not always bad. It can do things well. (But it rarely does a good job when the people running it don't want it to do a good job.)

A long time ago there was no socialized defense. Mercenaries and private companies handled national defense. We got away from that and that private industry has greatly diminished since those times. Most conservatives that I have heard talk about how great the military is and on the other hand talk about how government can't do anything right. Cognitive dissonance.

[shunted]

When the government "gives" it all away... free..., then what the hell does a person have to work hard for? Why would they have to improve their situation, and thus the situation of our country? Hmmm? That is why other countries have stagnated or declined. Cradle to grave everything. No need to improve. No need to work hard. Just get yourself born.

Most of the great discoveries and inventions weren't done for profit. They were done by people who love to solve problems, discover truths and understand the universe. Jonas Salk didn't get rich from the polio vaccine. He was not motivated by profit. Ditto for the men who discovered calculus, computing, computers, fast fourier transform, flight, germ theory, atomic theory, electromagnetism, ....

As the Bible says, "The love of money is the root of all evil." There are people motivated by things other than money and such people tend to do a better job than the one who are motivated by money.

[rgpizza]

Every time I have ever been to the emergency room ive waited like 10 hours. I live in the U.S. I was visiting my ex bf in canada and he broke his arm. we went to the emergency room and they saw him within a half hour

[Thumbs_Up]

Every time I have ever been to the emergency room ive waited like 10 hours. I live in the U.S. I was visiting my ex bf in canada and he broke his arm. we went to the emergency room and they saw him within a half hour


All of this depends on where you are and how busy of a night it is. My Wife has been an RN for years...if you live in a busy Urban area and you have been assesed as a broken arm while there are two gunshots to the torso...they're going in first.


Did you see Daniel Hannan on Hannity last night? The MEP from the UK?

When asked about Socialized medicine he said to the audience "if there is one thing you take away from talking to me it is DON'T Do IT" Look for the interview for specific's but he summed it up well.

[Thumbs_Up]

Here's an interesting Quote from the UK about their own system. It's not all Sunshine ;-)


"We have spent an extra £90 billion on the health service, the third-biggest employer in the world after the Red Army and Indian Railways. We have Third World maternity wards, elderly patients discharged with malnutrition, lower cancer and stroke survival rates than most of Europe and Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust, which has apparently allowed more than 400 people to die through sheer neglect.
Why? Not for lack of money. Not for want of teachers, doctors, nurses, therapists or radiographers. But because the law of diminishing returns kicks in particularly viciously in heavily unionised, bureaucratic, monopoly services"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article5941273.ece

[rgpizza]

All of this depends on where you are and how busy of a night it is. My Wife has been an RN for years...if you live in a busy Urban area and you have been assesed as a broken arm while there are two gunshots to the torso...they're going in first.


Did you see Daniel Hannan on Hannity last night? The MEP from the UK?

When asked about Socialized medicine he said to the audience "if there is one thing you take away from talking to me it is DON'T Do IT" Look for the interview for specific's but he summed it up well.

you do reliaze I can also list dozens of people some influential people from other countries and some everyday people who have lived in both countries and tell you to pull them up on you tube speaking for universal healthcare and against our health care.

So it doesn't make sense for you to tell someone to watch something just because it supports your opinion when their are an equal number of interviews that would support the other direction.

Has Danniel hannon lived in both the U.S. and the U.K? I haven't lived in the U.K. but I have lived in both the U.S and Canada and I know for a fact the wait time is no longer there then here at most hospitals.

I do know that in emergency rooms here they do not just see people in order of need they tell you its in order of need but its really in order of insurance as I've learned when I previouly worked in a childrens ward at suposedly one of the best childrens hospitals in the united states.

It can really break a persons heart after you seee enough children without insurance tossed onto the street or moved to a hospital you know wont be able to help them because their parents couldn't afford insurance. 400 people died in the UK due to negelience? try 400,000 children alone last year due to no health insurance.

[PercyVere]

Here in the USA, we are told that the "universal health care" plans in the far more advanced societies ;) (we are told this) are superior to what we have at home. We are told that "free health care" works efficiently. We are told that in these advanced systems, no one goes without healthcare. We are told that no one pays out of pocket.

So, please, if you are in a country that has "free health care", please explain how it is better than what we have in the USA. Please give examples.

MikeThe US has a good chunk of all the world's top medical experts, and provide some of the most advanced treatments available. This is why so many Canadians come to America for treatment.

40% or so of American have less than sufficient access to healthcare, massively more so than their Canadian cousins. This is why so many Americans go to Canada for treatment.

[LJB1031]

400 people died in the UK due to negelience? try 400,000 children alone last year due to no health insurance.
Show me the proof. Where did you get these statistics?

[cassie1]

Prescription prices are really ridiculous. One of my husband's prescriptons was $195.00 out of our pocket and that was with us using our secondary insurance. Without insurance the drug company charges $810.00, but with insurance the cost is $650.00. This is just one of his 10 prescriptions. come on this is something that really needs to be handled. It is unreal that these drug companies can get away with charging this much for certain types of drugs that I am sure does not cost that stinking much to make.

[rgpizza]

Show me the proof. Where did you get these statistics?


Living without health insurance is a risk no one should have to take. ... Every 24 minutes, someone in America dies because they were uninsured and could How many of these americans do you think are children?

http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/1997-press-releases/press-release-children-without-health-insurance-get-less-care.html
There is a large difference in the health care provided to uninsured children compared to insured children. For uninsured children, the unmistakable message is: Don't get sick," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA.
"The assumption that uninsured children will get the health care they need when they get sick is an unfortunate myth. To be uninsured and ill often means an inability to access timely physician, hospital, surgical, dental, and pharmaceutical services that youngsters need," Pollack said.
Based on data from the National Health Interview Survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, a federal agency, the study provides the first in-depth look at how children's access to health care is affected by long and short spells without health insurance. Information on more than 30,000 children was included in the data.
For children uninsured for a year or more, the disparity in care available to them in comparison with insured children is significant:


Two out of five long-term uninsured children (37 percent) do not visit a doctor at all in a year compared to 16 percent of insured children;
The average annual number of doctor visits per 1,000 children is 1,725 for long-term uninsured children compared with 3,461 for insured children;
When long-term uninsured children do see doctors, they are twice as likely as insured children to make their doctor visits in emergency rooms;
Long-term uninsured children average only 98 annual inpatient hospital days per 1,000 children compared to 234 annual days for insured children; and
One out of five children who are uninsured for a year or longer (20 percent) are missing all of their current immunizations compared to 12 percent for insured children.
The study also compared the health care available to uninsured and insured children who are in fair or poor health. Data about comparative access to care for uninsured and insured children in fair or poor health are important because they eliminate potential distortions that might exist due to differences in health status. Such data are also significant because children in fair or poor health are more likely to seek care than their healthier counterparts; if they cannot get care, the consequences are more likely to be severe and irreparable.


Devante Johnson, 14, died of kidney cancer after he spent four months uninsured while his mother tried to renew is Medicaid coverage. She filed application after application and appealed to a state representative. After the coverage was restored and he received first-rate care, Devante lost his battle with cancer
Devante Johnson, 14, died of kidney cancer after he spent four months uninsured while his mother tried to renew is Medicaid coverage. She filed application after application and appealed to a state representative. After the coverage was restored and he received first-rate care, Devante lost his battle with cancer

Children who lack health insurance are twice as likely to die from their injuries after being hospitalized as children who are insured, according to a new report released by Families USA (http://www.familiesusa.org/), USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-03-01-uninsured-kids_x.htm) reports. For the report, researchers led by J. Mick Tilford of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (http://www.uams.edu/) analyzed government data from 2000 and 2003.

The researchers examined the records of 25,000 uninsured children with general injuries and 6,500 with traumatic brain injuries and compared them with the records of insured children, adjusting to control for age, severity of injury and other case aspects. Researchers noted that they could not control for some factors, according to USA Today. The study found that the uninsured children had 3,000 "excess deaths" over two years. Researchers also reported the following findings:

but of course now you will come up with somthing to say in recourse now. You are only intrested in truths that support your oinion. Their are thousands of articals anybody could google to support any opinion they come up with.

[shunted]

Living without health insurance is a risk no one should have to take. ... Every 24 minutes, someone in America dies because they were uninsured and could How many of these americans do you think are children?

What is amazing to me is that most conservatives just turn a blind eye when it comes to those who are uninsured. I've even heard a conservative say that everyone is covered in our system - just go to the emergency room. That was Bush's nation health care strategy.

Of course none of these conservatives would dare give up their health insurance. If people without insurance are being adequately covered then people would give up their health insurance coverage because it wouldn't make economic sense to pay for something that you can get for free.

[LJB1031]

but of course now you will come up with somthing to say in recourse now. You are only intrested in truths that support your oinion. Their are thousands of articals anybody could google to support any opinion they come up with.

You are really putting words into my mouth, aren't you. I do think there needs to be some kind of system where everyone has access to good, affordable, healthcare (including free if you can't afford anything at all). I am not a Hannity parrot who thinks that the free market is the only way. The only thing I was questioning was your numbers. While I am sure there are people dying due to lack of affordable and effective health care, I seriously doubt that it is anywhere near 400,000 children. Your article fails to document that number. It only gave 1 example of a very extreme case. That hardly extrapolates to 400,000. Try again.

[Theranna]

Here in the USA, we are told that the "universal health care" plans in the far more advanced societies ;) (we are told this) are superior to what we have at home. We are told that "free health care" works efficiently. We are told that in these advanced systems, no one goes without healthcare. We are told that no one pays out of pocket.

So, please, if you are in a country that has "free health care", please explain how it is better than what we have in the USA. Please give examples.

Mike

Ok, Canadian health care is not free. We pay for it with our taxes and for some of us, through our companies' health care program. However, in the past couple of years, I've had to visit my neighbouring hospitals and clinics and can relate a few personal experiences.



When I was 17, I got hurt in gym class and I made knee injury worse by training for my city's top soccer team hardcore. I had hopes for a higher level career. After visiting my family doctor, I had to go in for about 4 months of physical therapy. Total cost: 0$ as I was covered by my parents' medical insurance.
I suffer from migraines and I had to go through my family doctor who referred me to a neurologist who found out I had a bad habit of clenching my teeth at night and biting the inside of my cheeks when I was stressed. I had to be fitted for an occlusal plate molded to my mouth and teeth. When I went to the dentist, it was discovered I had to remove all four of my wisdom teeth before I could be fitted for my plate. Total cost: Occlusal plate (400$) + first dentist visit (100$) + Wisdom teeth removal (400$) + migraine medicine (60$ - 20$ a pill) a month = roughly 80$ as 80% of my dental expenses were covered by my chosen insurance coverage via my job. In the long run, it was worthwhile since I went from having 2-3 migraines a month to having about 1 every 2-3 months. And I'm talking sensitive to light and sound, nausea leading to vomiting and I-want-to-drill-a-hole-in-my-skull-and-brain-so-the-hurt-can-leak-out migraines which can last 24-48 hours. I would have paid for the treatment but I am glad I didn't have to.
Last year, I had a double whammy... my back and neck locked at the same time. Took me two hours to roll out of bed. I took the bus to a nearby medical clinic and I'll say it, the wait was long and atrocious due to the pain I was in. I got there at 9.30 and didn't see a doctor, the only one on staff, until about 1pm. Bear in mind, there were about 10 patients ahead of me. Within 20 minutes, I had two prescriptions for the pain and one for an X-Ray. I took another bus to a nearby X-Ray clinic where there was no wait and at 2.30pm, I was home in bed and the pain was lessening. Total cost: 10$ after insurance payout.
Last November, a 1L glass bottle of olive oil fell on my wrist. I woke up the next morning, even though I'd iced it, to find it swollen and the pain was atrocious. I went to the hospital this time and got there at 10.30. I saw a triage nurse within the first half hour, saw a doctor within the next hour, had a battery of X-Rays done about 40 minutes later. Waited about an hour to see the doctor again and he prescribed me some pain killers, gave me instructions, reassured me my wrist was not broken and sent me home. Total cost: 4$ for the meds after my insurance pay out.
And last, but not least, I had a few medical issues last year that worried me. My family doctor had retired and it took my parents about a month to get their doctor to take me on again and I had an appointment within the next three weeks. Since it wasn't an emergency, it was fine with me. I had a full medical exam, got to skip most of the family history since he's been seeing my parents for the last 30+ years. He gave me a prescription for a little fungus infection I picked up at the gym, and a full battery of blood tests to do. I went in for my blood tests that same week and a week later, he asked me to come in the next week for my results. Turns out my iron level were low, so slightly anemic, my blood sugar was a little light and I definitely needed to lose weight, close to 80 lbs. Total cost: 0$.

My parents are elderly and have had several bad experiences in the last ten years. Glaucoma for my mom, more lung issues for my dad, he had TB when he was younger, and there was a fear of liver issues earlier this month. They are retired and on a restricted budget but their medical care runs no risk of bankrupting them. Naturally, they take care of themselves, they exercise, eat right but their bodies are coming to the end. Their medical care is seen to as part of their retirement package and their only expense would be if they sold their house and moved into a retirement village of some kind.

[Onan the Barbarian]

Just on the Australian perspective on this. We have universal healthcare. But it is a two tiered system were if you want to pay for private healthcare you can.
With the example used of cancer survival we have a higher rate than the US.
But it is also far cheaper than the US system, I think the per capita spending is around three times as much as Aus, and I think a lot of that can be attributed to the level of care in the US. When you have a company that owns both the insurance company that covers people and the hospital that treats people there is always going to be an incentive to do as many tests as possible to inflate the bill. There is a serious problem if the per capita rate is three times the European rate. And if companies provide healthcare for employees it is ging to be a serious impediment to employment.

Maybe you should consider universal health care?:)

[LJB1031]

Bump