American Health Care & Fox. Another one for our US phers.
Discussion
Having failed to get everyone not to pay their taxes, Fox News now appear to have latched onto this like a pitbull on a postman.
I mean as far as I can see the NHS in this country worked really well until the mid 60s when left wing unions decided it was a good way to earn money for nothing and started to bleed it dry. Then Thatch discovered it was too fat, went too far in leaning it down and now we are stuck with rich people who don't even use it, chavs who still bleed it dry and poor middle class drones like me who are so poor we can't afford to get our teeth fixed.
In the meantime the Labour idiots have installed a culture of managers who are paid stupid salaries and people are coming out of hospital sicker than when they went in.
I'm guessing that this is what Fox News is scared of or is the US insurance so big and profitable that the right is worried it will lose lots of lovely money? Is the health care system in the states really that bad for low paid workers in the states? I mean I don't see many pictures of people dying in the streets.
I know I shouldn't watch Fox News to get a view on America but I just find it fascinating. Today they highlighted the young guy in the UK who died because he drank so much they wouldn't give him a liver. Not saying he was stupid berk whose parents had basically let him damage himself so much with booze before he was even legally allowed to buy it that his death was inevitable. They held it up as; "This is what happens if you let your government run your health service! THEIR DOCTORS WILL DECIDE WHO LIVES OR DIES!!!!" There was also some more very cleverly coded stuff in there about them making sure that they are recruiting more minority doctors, so by implication saying that you stand more chance of being picked to live if you are a minority.
Whats the real view from the other side of the pond?
I mean as far as I can see the NHS in this country worked really well until the mid 60s when left wing unions decided it was a good way to earn money for nothing and started to bleed it dry. Then Thatch discovered it was too fat, went too far in leaning it down and now we are stuck with rich people who don't even use it, chavs who still bleed it dry and poor middle class drones like me who are so poor we can't afford to get our teeth fixed.
In the meantime the Labour idiots have installed a culture of managers who are paid stupid salaries and people are coming out of hospital sicker than when they went in.
I'm guessing that this is what Fox News is scared of or is the US insurance so big and profitable that the right is worried it will lose lots of lovely money? Is the health care system in the states really that bad for low paid workers in the states? I mean I don't see many pictures of people dying in the streets.
I know I shouldn't watch Fox News to get a view on America but I just find it fascinating. Today they highlighted the young guy in the UK who died because he drank so much they wouldn't give him a liver. Not saying he was stupid berk whose parents had basically let him damage himself so much with booze before he was even legally allowed to buy it that his death was inevitable. They held it up as; "This is what happens if you let your government run your health service! THEIR DOCTORS WILL DECIDE WHO LIVES OR DIES!!!!" There was also some more very cleverly coded stuff in there about them making sure that they are recruiting more minority doctors, so by implication saying that you stand more chance of being picked to live if you are a minority.
Whats the real view from the other side of the pond?
Edited by The Hypno-Toad on Wednesday 22 July 10:18
People are not dying in the streets. People reporting to the Emergency Room cannot be turned away for inability to pay, nor refused service. There is also a network of free healthcare for the poor run by each state. Transplants are also conducted through the donor network to those in free healthcare.
Our worry is that if Government run healthcare kicks in, so many will go to it that it will raise the cost of our private group policies as to forcing us out and into the bureaucrat plan. This will inevitably cause doctor's salaries to be capped, making it a less appealing profession to pursue; therefore, doctors will decline in both quality and numbers.
When medical decisions are made by accountants instead of doctors, we have a problem.
This will raise taxes (except for those who don't pay them anyway), weaken the talent pool of medical professionals, lessen care quality, and end up with the bad things the OP outlined in his opening post.
As for Fox reporting, check CNN, they are reporting that many Democrats are frustrated with the administration regarding healthcare.
Our worry is that if Government run healthcare kicks in, so many will go to it that it will raise the cost of our private group policies as to forcing us out and into the bureaucrat plan. This will inevitably cause doctor's salaries to be capped, making it a less appealing profession to pursue; therefore, doctors will decline in both quality and numbers.
When medical decisions are made by accountants instead of doctors, we have a problem.
This will raise taxes (except for those who don't pay them anyway), weaken the talent pool of medical professionals, lessen care quality, and end up with the bad things the OP outlined in his opening post.
As for Fox reporting, check CNN, they are reporting that many Democrats are frustrated with the administration regarding healthcare.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 22 July 16:28
The issue with healthcare in this country, and perhaps a reason why the US should take the NHS as a shining example of what can go wrong, is that is now entirely a malign political entity in it's own right.
Whilst the majority of British people don't give two hoots about the why's and wherefore's of free healthcare - as long as it works, doesn't involve a long wait, and is local and clean - Political think-tanks and lobbyists have latched onto the idea that NHS spending equals better healthcare equals more votes.
Although the public cost of healthcare here has much to do with the uniquely British love of bureaucracy creating thousands of expensive non-jobs, something which afflicts all public sector here, it is also due to politicians making commitments to increase "NHS spending by X percent year-on-year" - in the hope that it'll buy their place in electoral heaven.
Unfortunately there is a point at which it becomes good money after bad. The point in our case having been passed sometime ago, and we're now on the downward curve of the cost-benefit relationship; we're pumping more and more money in for less and less outcome.
There are parallels that could signal trouble for the Americans I feel - at the end of World War Two, Britain effectively swapped it's Treasury-funded love of Battleships for that of Hospitals. If, as it's global military interest wanes under budget constrictions (as Britain's did post 1945), then perhaps the US may find Healthcare replacing Defense as one of it's main political agendas. A noteable cause, but as Britain has discovered, whilst politicians are happy to decrease defence budgets almost recklessly every year, they'll rarely do it with healthcare.
In the case of the NHS, this natural bottomless pit has been exaggerated by the last Tory administration starving the NHS of cash in order to drive efficiency. This went too far, and the current Labour administration did the obvious and pumped vast sums of money into it. Some of this has worked very well, but equally it's recreated inefficiency and waste - why look after the pennies when there's a seemingly inexhaustible supply of money to be had from the Chancellor?
Whilst the majority of British people don't give two hoots about the why's and wherefore's of free healthcare - as long as it works, doesn't involve a long wait, and is local and clean - Political think-tanks and lobbyists have latched onto the idea that NHS spending equals better healthcare equals more votes.
Although the public cost of healthcare here has much to do with the uniquely British love of bureaucracy creating thousands of expensive non-jobs, something which afflicts all public sector here, it is also due to politicians making commitments to increase "NHS spending by X percent year-on-year" - in the hope that it'll buy their place in electoral heaven.
Unfortunately there is a point at which it becomes good money after bad. The point in our case having been passed sometime ago, and we're now on the downward curve of the cost-benefit relationship; we're pumping more and more money in for less and less outcome.
There are parallels that could signal trouble for the Americans I feel - at the end of World War Two, Britain effectively swapped it's Treasury-funded love of Battleships for that of Hospitals. If, as it's global military interest wanes under budget constrictions (as Britain's did post 1945), then perhaps the US may find Healthcare replacing Defense as one of it's main political agendas. A noteable cause, but as Britain has discovered, whilst politicians are happy to decrease defence budgets almost recklessly every year, they'll rarely do it with healthcare.
In the case of the NHS, this natural bottomless pit has been exaggerated by the last Tory administration starving the NHS of cash in order to drive efficiency. This went too far, and the current Labour administration did the obvious and pumped vast sums of money into it. Some of this has worked very well, but equally it's recreated inefficiency and waste - why look after the pennies when there's a seemingly inexhaustible supply of money to be had from the Chancellor?
Dunk76 said:
In the case of the NHS, this natural bottomless pit has been exaggerated by the last Tory administration starving the NHS of cash in order to drive efficiency.
Is this actually true? I cant remember the figures under Major, but under Thatcher health spending increased in real terms.Watch the film "Sicko" to learn the shocking truth about America's health care system. Like everything else in America, it only works for you if you're rich. Private insurance companies have been screwing us for decades and have armies of people working for them whose sole purpose is to deny people coverage.
As for Fox News, this is the channel where the radical right wing nutters go to for their daily dose of propaganda. It is effectively the de-facto propaganda outlet of the Republican Party. That's why you see nothing but kooks, blowhards, corporate shills, religious freaks and closet (and out-of-the-closet) racists polluting the screen with their hate-filled rhetoric 24/7.
According to Fox, Obama can do no right while Bush, Cheney and company can do no wrong. Any news outlet other than Fox is lambasted as being from the "Liberal Media" yet they fail to see the irony that they themselves are part of the same media which they are always bashing. Never mind the fact that America's corporate controlled media typically leans to the right anyway. Why let the facts get in the way of propaganda, right?
Cheers,
Madman of the People
As for Fox News, this is the channel where the radical right wing nutters go to for their daily dose of propaganda. It is effectively the de-facto propaganda outlet of the Republican Party. That's why you see nothing but kooks, blowhards, corporate shills, religious freaks and closet (and out-of-the-closet) racists polluting the screen with their hate-filled rhetoric 24/7.
According to Fox, Obama can do no right while Bush, Cheney and company can do no wrong. Any news outlet other than Fox is lambasted as being from the "Liberal Media" yet they fail to see the irony that they themselves are part of the same media which they are always bashing. Never mind the fact that America's corporate controlled media typically leans to the right anyway. Why let the facts get in the way of propaganda, right?
Cheers,
Madman of the People
MadmanO/T People said:
Watch the film "Sicko" to learn the shocking truth about America's health care system. Like everything else in America, it only works for you if you're rich. Private insurance companies have been screwing us for decades and have armies of people working for them whose sole purpose is to deny people coverage.
As for Fox News, this is the channel where the radical right wing nutters go to for their daily dose of propaganda. It is effectively the de-facto propaganda outlet of the Republican Party. That's why you see nothing but kooks, blowhards, corporate shills, religious freaks and closet (and out-of-the-closet) racists polluting the screen with their hate-filled rhetoric 24/7.
According to Fox, Obama can do no right while Bush, Cheney and company can do no wrong. Any news outlet other than Fox is lambasted as being from the "Liberal Media" yet they fail to see the irony that they themselves are part of the same media which they are always bashing. Never mind the fact that America's corporate controlled media typically leans to the right anyway. Why let the facts get in the way of propaganda, right?
Cheers,
Madman of the People
Total bull$hit, your entire post. As for Fox News, this is the channel where the radical right wing nutters go to for their daily dose of propaganda. It is effectively the de-facto propaganda outlet of the Republican Party. That's why you see nothing but kooks, blowhards, corporate shills, religious freaks and closet (and out-of-the-closet) racists polluting the screen with their hate-filled rhetoric 24/7.
According to Fox, Obama can do no right while Bush, Cheney and company can do no wrong. Any news outlet other than Fox is lambasted as being from the "Liberal Media" yet they fail to see the irony that they themselves are part of the same media which they are always bashing. Never mind the fact that America's corporate controlled media typically leans to the right anyway. Why let the facts get in the way of propaganda, right?
Cheers,
Madman of the People
First, other networks can say no wrong about Obama, so that goes both ways.
More importantly, the majority of Americans have insured healthcare, are doing fine healthwise, and are not rich. Yes, insurance comapnies are a business but the doctors still make the call. Do you think government healthcare will give more or better care? Evidence has only shown that answer to be no.
Lastly, anyone who uses a Michael Moore film as a factual reference has lost any credibility he might have had to begin with.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 22 July 16:35
Jimbeaux said:
More importantly, the majority of Americans have insured healthcare, are doing fine healthwise, and are not rich. Yes, insurance comapnies are a business but the doctors still make the call.
Sure, doctors make the call.......then the insurance company refuses to pay. End result? You're screwed!Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 22 July 16:35
Cheers,
Madman of the People
MadmanO/T People said:
Jimbeaux said:
More importantly, the majority of Americans have insured healthcare, are doing fine healthwise, and are not rich. Yes, insurance comapnies are a business but the doctors still make the call.
Sure, doctors make the call.......then the insurance company refuses to pay. End result? You're screwed!Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 22 July 16:35
Cheers,
Madman of the People
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 22 July 21:54
Jimbeaux said:
More importantly, the majority of Americans have insured healthcare, are doing fine healthwise, and are not rich. Yes, insurance comapnies are a business but the doctors still make the call. Do you think government healthcare will give more or better care? Evidence has only shown that answer to be no.
Lastly, anyone who uses a Michael Moore film as a factual reference has lost any credibility he might have had to begin with.
I believe that the best way around this is to get a child into the forces and have them declare you a dependant (called "adding to your page two.") The forces look like a very good deal for working to middle class families.Lastly, anyone who uses a Michael Moore film as a factual reference has lost any credibility he might have had to begin with.
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 22 July 16:35
If the insurance company will not pay do the doctors, nurses and so on, work for free? Doubtful.
MadmanO/T People said:
Jimbeaux said:
That is not accurate, very broad, and sounds like you are very angry from a bad experience.
It happens every day. Sounds like you need to get out more!Cheers,
Madman of the People
Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 22 July 21:55
BrassMan said:
If the insurance company will not pay do the doctors, nurses and so on, work for free? Doubtful.
The insurance company will pay at the end of the day.In a protracted argument a hospital may refuse to deal with a specific insurance company, however, you cannot be denied A&E care. Once the hospital has you stable they would merely transfer you to a hospital in the area that would be supported by your insurance company.
The insurance companies generally have an agreed value that they will pay out on care. So for instance, if you were given a certain medication, it may show on the itemised bill as being $100, but the insurance company will only pay $30 to the hospital. The insurance company knows how much that drug is worth, and won't pay out the RRP on it. The hospital either accepts that, or doesn't. The hospital doesn't chase you down for the other $70 btw.
However, the relationship goes both ways. If a certain insurance carrier is not supported at your hospital, then you will use another hospital in the area (and there are plenty to choose from in general). Vice versa, if that is your only hospital you may change your insurance carrier. Eventually though, both parties need to work together and they invariably come to a compromise.
This happened at our closest hospital in Florida.
Also, insurance companies cannot just "not pay" the hospital. First of all there are plenty of lawyers who would gladly start a class action against a big insurance company. Imagine the payout if your spouse died because the insurance company was mucking around for instance? And also, who would take cover with an insurance company that was known for not paying up?
Been watching the Healthcare issue this week with great interest. The Obama Administration are making a play by saying that "your current coverage will not be affected, your can use the same Dr, Hospitals etc and have the same cover" OR you can look into options provided by the healthcare bill. Then we hear this is all spin as employers will have a choice as to whether they continue providing healthcare benefits or pay a penalty of 8% i believe. Of course any large employer currently paying more than 8% of package to an employee is going to be seriously considering his choices.
I will defend Fox. You need to pay close attention to some of their commentators, Beck for instance is all about smaller govt, and has a dig at the GOP almost daily. Overall its a right wing bias of course, but Govt is out of hand on both sides of the Atlantic, and needs a good kicking from channels like Fox and Sky.
I will defend Fox. You need to pay close attention to some of their commentators, Beck for instance is all about smaller govt, and has a dig at the GOP almost daily. Overall its a right wing bias of course, but Govt is out of hand on both sides of the Atlantic, and needs a good kicking from channels like Fox and Sky.
One of the things that Obama did pledge and which would be useful is to force insurance companies to disregard prior history.
I have a close friend in the USA who suffers from a very rare and serious heart condition which was diagnosed in late childhood. Because of that condition she was unable to get healthcare insurance in her own right and her employer did not provide a scheme. Several years ago she had a heart attack followed by two strokes. The hospital treated her of course but as she was uninsured they also billed her. The result was a debt in excess of $300k and climbing that she could not pay. She has therefore been forced to file for bancruptcy.
Medical debt is overwhelmingly the biggest cause of bancruptcy in the USA.
Ironically since almost dying and now unable to work full time my friend now receives state subsidised medical insurance!
I do not believe that a move to a fully funded NHS type operation is either practical or affordable nor do I believe that it would be a panacea for the issues facing people in the USA. However if America wishes to continue to be the only first world nation not to provide universal healthcare for its citizens the government needs to ensure that affordable cover is available to everyone, regardless of their medical history.
I have a close friend in the USA who suffers from a very rare and serious heart condition which was diagnosed in late childhood. Because of that condition she was unable to get healthcare insurance in her own right and her employer did not provide a scheme. Several years ago she had a heart attack followed by two strokes. The hospital treated her of course but as she was uninsured they also billed her. The result was a debt in excess of $300k and climbing that she could not pay. She has therefore been forced to file for bancruptcy.
Medical debt is overwhelmingly the biggest cause of bancruptcy in the USA.
Ironically since almost dying and now unable to work full time my friend now receives state subsidised medical insurance!
I do not believe that a move to a fully funded NHS type operation is either practical or affordable nor do I believe that it would be a panacea for the issues facing people in the USA. However if America wishes to continue to be the only first world nation not to provide universal healthcare for its citizens the government needs to ensure that affordable cover is available to everyone, regardless of their medical history.
unrepentant said:
I do not believe that a move to a fully funded NHS type operation is either practical or affordable nor do I believe that it would be a panacea for the issues facing people in the USA. However if America wishes to continue to be the only first world nation not to provide universal healthcare for its citizens the government needs to ensure that affordable cover is available to everyone, regardless of their medical history.
Maybe if the fat f
ks stopped stuffing their faces with cheese, red meat and e numbers, they might need less healthcare full stop?Mst007 said:
Been watching the Healthcare issue this week with great interest. The Obama Administration are making a play by saying that "your current coverage will not be affected, your can use the same Dr, Hospitals etc and have the same cover" OR you can look into options provided by the healthcare bill. Then we hear this is all spin as employers will have a choice as to whether they continue providing healthcare benefits or pay a penalty of 8% i believe. Of course any large employer currently paying more than 8% of package to an employee is going to be seriously considering his choices.
I will defend Fox. You need to pay close attention to some of their commentators, Beck for instance is all about smaller govt, and has a dig at the GOP almost daily. Overall its a right wing bias of course, but Govt is out of hand on both sides of the Atlantic, and needs a good kicking from channels like Fox and Sky.
Well said. Remember, keeping government small and out of one's business and being basically non-Labour is what Fox's "bias" is all about. We all need a bit more of that now days.I will defend Fox. You need to pay close attention to some of their commentators, Beck for instance is all about smaller govt, and has a dig at the GOP almost daily. Overall its a right wing bias of course, but Govt is out of hand on both sides of the Atlantic, and needs a good kicking from channels like Fox and Sky.
Bing o said:
unrepentant said:
I do not believe that a move to a fully funded NHS type operation is either practical or affordable nor do I believe that it would be a panacea for the issues facing people in the USA. However if America wishes to continue to be the only first world nation not to provide universal healthcare for its citizens the government needs to ensure that affordable cover is available to everyone, regardless of their medical history.
Maybe if the fat fks stopped stuffing their faces with cheese, red meat and e numbers, they might need less healthcare full stop?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff