er... in reference to sidruid. sorry actsofcreation. ;]- we all know i fall in the socialist camp.
i may be fuzzy on the details, but i believe a lot of the national healthcare plans allow for private insurance to run alongside, so that those who have more money can get better care. thats part of the idea... its about setting a minimal care standard not a maximum. here in america if you are broke you are screwed. also, i have heard that many canadians who get surgery in america have it reimbursed by their national health plan... they come to america because they cant get it done at home, but canada picks up the bill.
i think the thing we can all agree on is our current system here is the pits. we pay more per person and yet have some of the worst healthcare among the first world nations. step one is getting rid of greed and corruption, overpayments to hmos and pharmacies, step 2 is transparency, and step 3 is reducing unnecessary tests and drugs. in america the doctors would prefer you sick to healthy. they dont make any money on healthy people or preventative care.
The point being that unlike what sidruid was suggesting, I'd pay rather a lot for NHS in Britain, be unable to get service from it, and then have to pay rather a lot all over again to get private care. So I wouldn't pay into a pool, perhaps a bit to much, and then have to pay $0 for my surgery. Rather, I'd pay into a pool, perhaps a bit to much, and then have to go pay for my surgery in addition.
we can argue until the cows come home. ;] as i said, i am certainly considered more than adequately covered... i have some of the best insurance you can get. that doesnt keep me from having to wait weeks or months for surgery, or waiting 6-8 hours in a hospital waiting room to get attention... we have discussed before that its possible its because i am in jersey. but whatever "horror stories" i hear from national healthcare, they are nothing compared to what us here in jersey take as normal. i had to wait in a hallway for several hours to get a bed in the emergency room, and i came in with tests proving i had major bloodclots and i needed an immediate iv, and yet they waited 6 hours to give me blood thinner because they didnt believe the results i came in with. ie, negligence.
so personally, i am not surprsied that nhs cannot adequately serve its own employees... neither can anyone in new jersey. and we are hearing cases of people who die because their hmo refuses to cover them for cancer. so i am also not surprised if nhs, a "minimum coverage", doesnt cover certain surgeries. again, it would still be better than what we have in new jersey.
but this is truly not to start a fight... just some more discussion.
I think a lot of it is New Jersey. When I had a cyst in my eye and went to the emergency room (because it was one of those things that might have been quite serious) my wait was about 30 minutes.
well, is it possible that in england, or any country discussed, there could be times and places that are like jersey, and some that are like texas? ;]- just because some bad stories come out doesnt necessarily negate the whole system... although that could also be true.
i would be willing to bet that texas is also at one end of the spectrum. i dont believe that new jersey is really so atypical of the country as a whole, especially considering how poor the south is. i am not sure if there is a way to find out what the "average" care is though.
anyways, perhaps keep us new jerseyians (also new york, and probably our surrounding states) in mind when thinking about american vs. socialist healthcare. it would probably do us a lot better.
But that inevitably begs the question... if New Jersey and Texas are so culturally different... why impose the same healthcare system on both of them? Doesn't it make more sense for each state to select the healthcare system that best fits it's culture? Federalism if you will...
The case has been made that regional collections of states, with more localized economies, taxes, laws, etc might make a lot more sense for the country. MA, for example, mandates insurance for all. I suspect the northeast would be willing to figure out a happy socialist system, and southwest would likely find a coinsurance system. The trouble today is that the only politically palatable option (somewhere in the middle) doesn't work for anyone. Meanwhile, we in the NE bristle at seeing our US tax $$s shipped south, then spent in a manner we find wasteful (btw, i can only assume that perspective is vice-versa elsewhere :), nature of the beast).
i may be fuzzy on the details, but i believe a lot of the national healthcare plans allow for private insurance to run alongside, so that those who have more money can get better care. thats part of the idea... its about setting a minimal care standard not a maximum. here in america if you are broke you are screwed. also, i have heard that many canadians who get surgery in america have it reimbursed by their national health plan... they come to america because they cant get it done at home, but canada picks up the bill.
i think the thing we can all agree on is our current system here is the pits. we pay more per person and yet have some of the worst healthcare among the first world nations. step one is getting rid of greed and corruption, overpayments to hmos and pharmacies, step 2 is transparency, and step 3 is reducing unnecessary tests and drugs. in america the doctors would prefer you sick to healthy. they dont make any money on healthy people or preventative care.
Reply
1) The NHS in Britain can't even adequately serve it's own employees.
2) The surgery I need would never be covered by the NHS to begin with.
Reply
Reply
so personally, i am not surprsied that nhs cannot adequately serve its own employees... neither can anyone in new jersey. and we are hearing cases of people who die because their hmo refuses to cover them for cancer. so i am also not surprised if nhs, a "minimum coverage", doesnt cover certain surgeries. again, it would still be better than what we have in new jersey.
but this is truly not to start a fight... just some more discussion.
Reply
Reply
i would be willing to bet that texas is also at one end of the spectrum. i dont believe that new jersey is really so atypical of the country as a whole, especially considering how poor the south is. i am not sure if there is a way to find out what the "average" care is though.
anyways, perhaps keep us new jerseyians (also new york, and probably our surrounding states) in mind when thinking about american vs. socialist healthcare. it would probably do us a lot better.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment