• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Socialized health care

Faust

Active Member
I'd like to hear from some of our members who have socialized health care.
What is your assessment of it?
Whats good about it?
What are some of its down-falls?
Faust.
 

Fluffy

A fool
Well I am glad we have socialized healthcare in the UK. It is far from amazing (largely because of the massive under funding it endured during Thatcherism) but I think that people in the UK often take for granted the advantages that free health care offers them. Often they don't realise the massive cost of medical insurance or hospital bills encurred in other countries.

Its major downfall is that it is a rather controversial thing since it rests on the idea of how much power a person should have over their wealth, something which is central to almost all political philosophies. Therefore, its temperamental nature is highlighted with each change of government. Things haven't helped since the switch from Old Labour to New Labour since they are now, effectively, in the same camp as the Conservatives leading to yet more underfunding.
 

kreeden

Virus of the Mind
It is expensive . :) Other then that , I think it is all good . Could be better , but then it would be even more expensive .... Oh , the main problem with it being expensive is that the cost is governed by politicans , which means they are always trying to cut cost ... It is something that many don't see the need for , untill they need it , or at lest that is how politicans think .
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Fluffy said:
Well I am glad we have socialized healthcare in the UK. It is far from amazing (largely because of the massive under funding it endured during Thatcherism) but I think that people in the UK often take for granted the advantages that free health care offers them. Often they don't realise the massive cost of medical insurance or hospital bills encurred in other countries.

Its major downfall is that it is a rather controversial thing since it rests on the idea of how much power a person should have over their wealth, something which is central to almost all political philosophies. Therefore, its temperamental nature is highlighted with each change of government. Things haven't helped since the switch from Old Labour to New Labour since they are now, effectively, in the same camp as the Conservatives leading to yet more underfunding.
Hehe; there you go again - Thatcher bashing; (I'll forgive you) - I remembered an item of post I saw not too long ago:-


trans.gif

June 18, 2005

NHS negligence payouts top £8m
By Angus MacLeod
Scots demand more compensation for medical mishaps


THE amount of compensation paid out by the NHS in Scotland as a result of claims of negligence has reached more than £8 million a year; double what it was eight years ago.

Scottish Executive figures released yesterday show that in 1997-98 a total of £3.5 million was paid in compensation. Over the past 12 months it was £8.3 million. The legal bill associated with the claims rose from £623,936 to £1.7 million over the same period. An Executive spokesman said that the increase was due to the settlement of large-value cases which could skew total payment figures in any one year.

The amount of money paid out in Scotland is still far less than in the rest of the UK. During 2003-04, the total compensation bill for the NHS in Wales was £25 million, in Northern Ireland it was £20 million and in England it was £422 million.

The Scottish National Party called yesterday for a reform of the NHS claims system and the introduction of a no-fault compensation scheme. Nicola Sturgeon, its deputy leader, said that, while it was right that patients who suffered injury on the NHS were properly compensated, ministers had to investigate why claims had risen so sharply over the past few years. “Given that the legal costs have also gone up to nearly £2 million a year, and total the best part of £10 million over the past eight years, surely it is time for the Executive to introduce a no-fault compensation scheme. This would ensure a better way of dealing with accidents and mistakes in the NHS rather than paying lawyers large amounts of money to defend cases in court.” The Scottish Conservatives dismissed Ms Sturgeon’s idea. Nanette Milne, the party’s health spokeswoman, said that such a scheme was likely to lead to far more compensation claims and would still involve long arguments about levels of compensation. It would also, said Dr Milne, merely deal with the consequences rather than the causes of mistakes and negligence. “If we do not discover who or what is at fault, the negligence will never be exposed and lessons rarely learnt, ” she said.

I don't think it is so much underfunding; the waste of money in the national health service is incredible.​

Just recently I meant to get in touch with the local hospital about a recurring problem.​

I received a letter by first class mail, in November 2004, for an appointment in 2006 - and I know that I will receive another letter about a month before the appointment is due (in case I have forgotten) - think of the difference between the cost of first clais mail and second class, and multiply that out by the number of appointments made each year.​

Our local hospital have decided on two occasions to change all the nurse's uniform, within three years...need I say more? - I don't think it is so much about underfunding, but more about sheer stupid and inexcusable waste.:149:​
trans.gif
trans.gif
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Socialized medicine is set up very differently in different countries. If you visit foreign talkboards you'll find that everyone complains about it but no-one would do away with it. At this moment there are a couple of threads on this topic on the (London) Guardian Unlimited talkboards that both Americans and Brits might find enlightening. There 's a lot of buzz in the Canadian papers as well about some recent problems.

The American system of pay-as-you-go generally delivers good and prompt service but at an astronomical price.

American opponents of direct-pay systems usually cite high cost/increased taxes as a major reason for retaining the current system. In actual fact, though, Americans, in both taxes and direct fees, pay more for medical services than any other country in the world.

A single-payer system could retain present levels of service at little more than half the current cost, but there are a great many politically powerful interests that have fingers in the health care pie. I don't see any major changes on the horizon in the present political climate.
 

jeffrey

†ßig Dog†
My wife is from England, been in the U.S. almost 3 years now. She loves the doctors over here, and the ability to have done what you need done almost immediately, without being put on a waiting list. She doesn't like having to pay for it though! LOL. We just bought a house, and she realizes that if they would have had socialized medicine over here, our taxes would have been to high to afford it. If you work, you not only have to pay (In taxes) for yourself and family, but foot the bill for the people that don't work. Something needs to be done. But not that.
 

anders

Well-Known Member
Faust said:
I'd like to hear from some of our members who have socialized health care.
What is your assessment of it?
Whats good about it?
What are some of its down-falls?
Faust.
I suppose you'd label the Swedish system socialized. Having lived in it for more than 60 years, I wouldn't trade it for anything else. I had a stroke a few years ago, and got a treatment at least as good as anywhere else in the world, and now I'm almost as good as new. It cost me just about what I would have paid for food during the months I was hospitalized. I had no additional insurance than what is automatic for any Swedish citizen.

You'd think that paying taxes at some 30-60 % of your net earnings is a bit tough, but considering what I get out of it, it's a bargain. Imagine never having to pay more than some USD 300 per year for prescription drugs, and some USD 50 or less for any consultation at a physician's or a hospital (any tests subsequent to it free), and to a standard no country anywhere could beat... (I have to add that the Greek and the Indian physician my ex-fiancée and I, respectively, have had to consult, were world-class.) And I still, being a very conservative person, think that our socialist government could improve many aspects of our health care/social security system if they looked at Britain or Germany (or maybe Canada, Australia and NZ as well).
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
The NHS in the Uk works very well for the majority.
The Rich still have the option to go private, mostly they see the same doctors but in private hospitals and pay for being seen sooner. If thing go wrong the get sent to Nhs hospitals who have better/larger facilities and more top specialists.
I recently had a hernia done in a private clinic by the same doctor I had seen in the local nhs hospital.
The other benefit is you never run out of insurance cover however expensive so most Cancer and long term conditions are treated in NHS hospitals.
There are lots of faults in the system but it works.
Terry
___________
Blessed are the merciful, mercy shall be shown unto them.
 

Faust

Active Member
Thank you so much for your replies.
I have heard so many stories from people in America about six month waiting lists for serious health problems among other horror stories concerning the evils of socialized medicine that I decided to get some first hand accounts and you have all come through for me.
I have to mention here that these stories are from conservatives who are grounded in the doctrine that anything smacking of socialism is evil.
So, What about those long waiting lists for serious health problems?
Are they real or are they anti-socialist propaganda?
Faust.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
jgallandt said:
My wife is from England, been in the U.S. almost 3 years now. She loves the doctors over here, and the ability to have done what you need done almost immediately, without being put on a waiting list. She doesn't like having to pay for it though! LOL. We just bought a house, and she realizes that if they would have had socialized medicine over here, our taxes would have been to high to afford it. If you work, you not only have to pay (In taxes) for yourself and family, but foot the bill for the people that don't work. Something needs to be done. But not that.
I have seen the opposite of your wife's position. We used to take in foreign students (Board & lodging during their stay at a language school). Once we had a Japanese girl who came home, very upset - she had fallen over and thought she might have broken her arm.

I got the car out, ready to take her to Accident & emergency - and the poor girl started crying - she thought she would be landed with a heavy bill for the Xrays and for having her arm put in plaster.:)
 

jeffrey

†ßig Dog†
My Wife's mum was on a waiting list for almost a year for a hip replacement. now the other one needs replaced and She's back on another waiting list. It's not life or death, but she can hardly walk.
 

Faust

Active Member
I'm having hernia surgery soon, I've put it off now for about 18 years.

I had my dog spayed and the vet did surgery for a hernia at the same time and the total bill was under 300 dollars. I asked her if she would do my surgery.
It seems to me that american insurance companies are all about profit. They have taken a look at the health care system in the states and figured out how to make all that money theirs! In the process they have helped to drive the cost through the roof!
Emergency visits have become a nightmare.
Those who can't afford,or aren't provided with coverage through a company flood the emergency room for basic health care needs,cysts, colds, earaches, ect... and those who are there for an emergency aren't seen to properly.
Then you have to deal with the codes that the insurance company provides the hospital for billing purposes. My son has asthma and sometimes has to go for breathing treatments when his emergency inhaler doesn't control the attack. This last time my wife took him to an urgent care facility and the doctor there called an ambulance and had him transported to the emergency room. We received a denial of payment saying it was not an emergency situation based on the definitions provided to the hospital by the insurance company! I mean come on! If you can't breath I should think that it is an emergency!
We have had many simular experiences and they all seem to be based on maximizing the profit margin of the insurance company. In addition the hospitals now employ separate billing agencies (driving the costs even higher) so that when there is a question of billing you are now dealing with three different entities and they all point the finger at the other two as being responsible for billing problems. It takes months to straighten these bills out and in the mean time your credit rating is being threatened.
I don't have health insurance on my pets and there is an astronomical difference in cost.
And my vet makes a decent living!
Faust.
 

Fluffy

A fool
Hehe; there you go again - Thatcher bashing; (I'll forgive you) - I remembered an item of post I saw not too long ago:-
Lol well I seem to have a more ingrained dislike of Thatcher than of the Conservative Party in general. However, on the issue of healthcare, I do think that all recent governments have treated the NHS badly, not just Thatcher.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The long waits for tests, X-rays and treatment seem to be a major complaint for mamy people. In the US we expect that all relevant medical tests, scans and treatment plans will be undertaken within 24 hours, but we pay a high price for this. There is no reason why this standard of care couldn't be the rule everywhere, even with a single-payer system.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Faust said:
Thank you so much for your replies.
I have heard so many stories from people in America about six month waiting lists for serious health problems among other horror stories concerning the evils of socialized medicine that I decided to get some first hand accounts and you have all come through for me.
I have to mention here that these stories are from conservatives who are grounded in the doctrine that anything smacking of socialism is evil.
So, What about those long waiting lists for serious health problems?
Are they real or are they anti-socialist propaganda?
Faust.
Serious conditions are usually seen very quickly. It is the optional operations like hernias that usually have longer waiting lists. they can be put back for a while to see to more serious cases.and may take over six months wait. but much more than that they would send you to a private hospital for free as they have limits how long they can keep you waiting.
Terry
_____________________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Terrywoodenpic said:
Serious conditions are usually seen very quickly. It is the optional operations like hernias that usually have longer waiting lists. they can be put back for a while to see to more serious cases.and may take over six months wait. but much more than that they would send you to a private hospital for free as they have limits how long they can keep you waiting.
Terry
_____________________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.
I had a nine month wait for my new hip - but I opted to go on the cancellation list, however short the notice - I had mine done inside a month.:)
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Seyorni said:
The long waits for tests, X-rays and treatment seem to be a major complaint for mamy people. In the US we expect that all relevant medical tests, scans and treatment plans will be undertaken within 24 hours, but we pay a high price for this. There is no reason why this standard of care couldn't be the rule everywhere, even with a single-payer system.
When you go to see a hospital specialist these days xrays and test are usually done at the same time. Scans can take longer as the machines can be booked up. emergency scans are done at once. Things have improved a great deal over the last few years.
There are shortages of speciallists in some hospitals which can slow things down.

My son is a Charge nurse (nurse in charge) in an A&E department in Kent and most patients are seen as soon as they arrive, though some not urgent ones may have to wait for actual treatment. stings don't come high on the treatment list. The problem is, since it is all free people come for very minor things, that in a pay situation they would not.
Terry
___________________________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
Insurance companies seem to take advantage of things, and as a result prices go through the roof, however, socialist medicine can be taken advantage of too. For instance, the goverment can keep you waiting long enough that you die before the procedure can be done, and thus they don't have to pay for it. This sounds like a ridiculous scenario, and maybe it is, but all I know is that my mother is a physician, and she seems to think that this happens more often than people would like to admit. Since she is part of the medical community after all, so i think I'll believe her.

In my opinion, the US method of using insurance seems to be doing just fine. The majority of people are able to afford satisfactory health insurance, and those that can are supported by different government programs, free clinics, etc. I say that the best mode of progress would be to increase the avalibility, etc., of the programs designed to help people who can't afford insurance, rather than do away with insurance altogether.

What about this idea? Much like someone can qualify for welfare, people should also be able to qualify to have their medical bills paid by the government. Of course, welfare is extremely abused by many people, but if the system were tweaked, a lot of that could be fixed easily.
 

Faust

Active Member
Ceridwen018 said:
Insurance companies seem to take advantage of things, and as a result prices go through the roof, however, socialist medicine can be taken advantage of too. For instance, the goverment can keep you waiting long enough that you die before the procedure can be done, and thus they don't have to pay for it. This sounds like a ridiculous scenario, and maybe it is, but all I know is that my mother is a physician, and she seems to think that this happens more often than people would like to admit. Since she is part of the medical community after all, so i think I'll believe her.
I don't know Ceridwen, but as I said, this is what I hear from people in the states, but I seem to be getting slightly different views from members that have socialized systems.
Is it possible that we in America have been taught to fear anything categorized as socialist?
Faust.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Ceridwen018 said:
In my opinion, the US method of using insurance seems to be doing just fine. The majority of people are able to afford satisfactory health insurance,

What about this idea? Much like someone can qualify for welfare, people should also be able to qualify to have their medical bills paid by the government. Of course, welfare is extremely abused by many people, but if the system were tweaked, a lot of that could be fixed easily.
Insurance companies are businesses whose primary concern is making money. They do this by calculating the probable health costs per individual and charging a fee approximately double this. Private insurance companies and other ancillary health-related services provide no direct medical care, but their fees feature prominently on medical bills. The fact is, Americans spend more on health care than any other country in the world, yet insurance companies have most people convinced that a socialized health-care system, despite all evidence to the contrary, would actually cost more!

As far as Ceridwen's idea of government subsidies for the poor, this is already in effect. It's called Medicaid.

Americans with health insurance subsidize the millions of Americans and Mexicans that cannot afford health insurance and use emergency rooms as their sole medical providers, knowing that it's difficult to legally deny service to indigents.
 
Top