Posted by detroitpistons on March 1, 2009, at 13:11:49
In reply to Re: Doctors in England-detroitpistons, posted by West on February 28, 2009, at 16:48:49
From what I read and hear, there are some great healthcare systems in the world. While none of them is perfect, at least everyone in those countries has access. It's not even up to debate in Europe (and Canada and pretty much everywhere)....It's just a generally accepted principle that healthcare is a basic necessity that everyone should have and that the state should provide.
Change from the status quo is scary for people, even if the status quo is terrible. Here we have these conservative ideologues (no offense to any conservative ideologues reading this) that think that government is the bane of existence. I see myself as more in the center. I think government is necessary for some things, and bad for others. The idea that "free market capitalism" is a magic panacea that will cure all of societies' ills is just absurd to me. Don't get me wrong, I am "pro business," but there has to be a balance.
One of the arguments against nationalized healthcare here is that we will all be waiting months and months in order to get care. They say that people come here from Canada to get surgeries because they can't get them at home. While that's true in some cases, I think it's exaggerated. The thing is, you can always have private clinics and hospitals in addition to nationalized healthcare. You can still keep this insurance system for anyone that's "dissatisfied."
We do have Medicare and Medicaid here, but only the seriously disabled and the very poor qualify for that. If you are in the middle class or lower-middle class, you are basically on your own. You can purchase "individual" insurance plans for yourself and your family, but the coverage is generally minimal and very expensive. Only the "group" plans generally offer good insurance. The only way to get into a group plan, generally, is to be employed by a company or entity who offers it. Group insurance is what you what. For the most part, you are covered, no questions asked. You are part of a larger "risk pool," whereas with individual insurance, YOU are the risk pool, as the name implies. Therefore, you can't spread the risk. A lot of people would rather not even buy this type of insurance because it feels like you are wasting your money.
This individual garbage subjects you to all sorts of scrutiny, and it can actually be a little humiliating. You have to disclose your entire medical history. Therefore, if you have an ongoing illness, they're not going to cover it for a certain period of time, if at all! If they know they are going to lose money on you, they won't take you. This is the existing incentive system.
I have found a state funded for mental health clinic that's free of charge. Your doctor appointments are free, and they'll cover you with med samples in the short term. They asked me to apply for Medicaid so that I'll receive a rejection letter (it's generally accepted that someone of my young age and "employability" doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted), in order for the drug companies to be willing to accept me into their "patient assistance" programs. That's right, some of the drug companies will give you reduced price meds if your income is below the poverty level and you have exhausted all attempts to get aid from the state....They are real philanthropists. I lost my job and now I'm back in school, and so I should qualify.
The thing is, no matter what your financial situation, a lot of medications are unaffordable to begin with. If you don't have drug coverage, one month's worth of Effexor XR is going to cost you about $900.00 (probably depends on dosage - that's for 90 x 225mg)! Generics aren't necessarily all cheap either. If you are taking 3 or 4 different drugs, you could still end up paying a couple hundred dollars a month.
I had a debate online not too long ago with some people on a newspaper's website, in response to an article about new money coming into our state from the federal government, to help fund our Medicaid system. The state that I live in (Michigan) has the highest unemployment rate in the country, and our budget is a mess. There were some people who made comments about a "welfare state," etc, etc...I think these people are generally brainwashed by various sources, but that's a separate issue. They say, "Why should I have to pay for someone else's healthcare? I pay for my own, socialism, socialism, I am an angry little troll, blah, blah, blah."
They are entitled to their opinions and philosophies, but I question their sense of morality. After all, this article was about Medicaid for people who are needy by no choice of their own, not nationalzed healthcare for all. One person claimed that our constitution doesn't say anything about providing healthcare to the public. It doesn't say anything about healthcare specifically, but it does say something about "general welfare." I would say that health falls into that category.
Sorry to be so longwinded...I do think Obama is going to address all of this. But if you listen to some of the hardcore conservatives here, you'd think that Obama is the reincarnation of Karl Marx.
Again, the status quo is important in all of this. Do the strict conservatives in England argue that the NHS should be abolished, and that England should go to an American style insurance system? I doubt it.
It's true...The government can be very inefficient. The government can screw things up badly. However, the current system ain't working either. The "free market" extreme doesn't solve the problem either.
> > West,
> >
> > What do you think about the NHS in general? Obviously, you are frustrated with it right now, but do you think that it's a good system in the grand scheme?
>
> I think it is a great institution all things considered, though obviously where specialist help is required the system suffers under the strain a bit. I don't know enough about psychiatric drug prescribing to make an educated judgement. I'd be inclined to say it was conservative and follows rigourously guidelines set out in the bnf though this might not always be the case, all of the time.
>
> > This is a subject of great interest to me because I am an American, and our healthcare system needs repair. As you probably know, we have 48 million citizens with no healthcare. Medical expenses are the #1 cause of bankrupcy.
>
> I think healthcare should be nationalised. You do have medicaid, a similar entity offering dispensation to low income patients correct? I have always wondered how it must feel not just to have the luxury of a free healthcare system. Remember me are taxed very highly in the UK which funds the NHS, often incredibly inefficiently.
>
> > I am not comfortable with healthcare being entirely profit driven. This basically means that the people who need it the most have the least chance of getting it. I lost my job, and therefore, I lost my health insurance. Now I'm walking a tightrope.
>
> Yes, I see the problem. Can you apply for any special government-aided discounts on your meds? Aren't generic versions of drugs widely available and very cheap in the US
>
> > Hospitals here legally can't refuse you treatment, but they can send you a bill for $100,000.
>
> > I don't know what we should do. If you bring up nationalized healthcare here, the people on the right start screaming SOCIALISM. I don't know what we should do, but I do know that we can't go on like this.
>
> That's crazy. The politics are so rudimentary. Maybe things will be better under obama?
>
>
> West
poster:detroitpistons
thread:881041
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20090223/msgs/883213.html