My recent experience of the UK National Health Service (long post)

[clive bradbury]

I know that health provision is a hot topic in the USA right now, and I also know that the British NHS has been receiving a lot of criticism over there as part of that debate. I do not propose to join in any of those arguments, but it may be of interest to you to relate my recent experience with the NHS.

I suspected that I had a hernia for some time, so mentioned it when I visited my GP on an unrelated matter. He said that I had two, and referred me for surgery. The subsequent timeline was:

GP appointment: end of July . He sent the information to the NHS surgical team, and I had to wait five working days before contacting them (to allow time to process the paperwork).

I duly phoned the contact number, and was offered a choice of four hospitals:


My local NHS hospital (10 miles away)
Two alternative NHS hospitals, both about 30 miles away
The local private hospital (again roughly 10 miles away)

The reason that the NHS pays for private care as an option is that they are now required to undertake surgery within quite a strict time limitation. If their own hospitals cannot complete it within that window, they tend to pay for private surgery to get the waiting lists down.

I chose the latter (unsurprisingly) and was given an appointment date of September 3rd.

Attended, saw the surgeon, who told me I actually had three hernias (the third being an umbilical). He then asked when I wanted the surgery. Given the media criticism of long NHS waiting lists, I suggested early December, expecting him to laugh in my face at my naïve optimism. To my surprise he told me that I could have the surgery within a fortnight.

This was unsuitable, as I run my own company and had just filled my diary with appointments, so I asked for mid-October, which was duly fixed for Friday 16th.

Admitted at lunchtime, with an initial theatre time of 1430hrs. However things were running late, so it was closer to 1630. Back in my private room, including cable sports channels, by 1900hrs. Evening meal (soup & sandwiches, provided) I would have been able to go home at about 2300, but one wound (keyhole surgery) was bleeding, so I decided to stay overnight.

Went home at 1100 the following morning after breakfast. Follow up appointment with the surgeon due for six weeks’ time.

To summarise, hernia detected end of July, surgery could have been done in early September, private health care throughout, cost to me – nothing.

[OneToughHerring]

I'll chime in too about the UK health service. I was there as a measly exchange student and at the start of my exchange period I had a prolonged flu with fever. I got to see the doc and got good advice and recipe and was happy with the service. The doc had visited my home town in Finland and we had a nice chat about how nice its there in the summer. It didn't cost me a thing to see the doc.

All and all I think the Brits have a reason to be proud of their great health care.

[GoldenRivet]

To summarise, hernia detected end of July, surgery could have been done in early September

wouldn't it be better if this statement was

"hernia detected end of July, surgery completed 5 days later."

and it only cost you a deductible or co-pay amount...

i think so. :yep:

[CaptainHaplo]

First off - great to hear your recovering! :yeah:

I do have to raise one issue, because you said something that ultimately isn't factual, though you may not have realized it.

"cost to me – nothing"

Now you said you run your own company. So you obviously pay all the applicable taxes. Those taxes would be alot lower if it were not for things such as health care for everyone in the UK. Now I won't say that every experience is bad, or that the quality is always low, because there are times things go as they are intended. But to say it costs you nothing, is simply inaccurate. You pay, in taxes and fees, not only for your own care, but for the care of others. If your ok with that, great! But for many, the reason the issue is up for discussion is because in the US, a great number of people do not feel RESPONSIBLE for those that refuse to care for themselves, or do things like break our laws, enter our country illegally, and then demand health care.

On top of that, you also have to weigh the question of EFFICIENCY. For what you have paid into the system, does the system get its money's worth? Recall you said you went to a private hospital. So the government paid more for your care than it would have normally. Also, you stated that government care has taken steps to alleviate the long waits. Doing so increase the expense of the care.

No matter how you look at it - there is a trade off. Cost vs Efficiency. This is where many Americans look to the examples that have shown private enterprise consistently outperforms public, governmental endeavors.

I am not slamming the system, just noting that its costs to you are hidden, and there is always a sacrifice. Remember, nothing worth (goods and services wise) having will ever "cost nothing".

[MothBalls]

Glad to hear you got it sorted. Here in the States if you were uninsured, the timeline would have been as soon as someone could afford the 20k for the operation, and probably 2k in followup costs and prescriptions. If it was something major, like heart surgery, anywhere from 40-100k depending on the problem. That's why they want the public option, so people don't have to go bankrupt to save their lives.

[CaptainHaplo]

Mothballs - good point, though not entirely true. If you need lifesaving, emergency surgery, you get it, then get a bill. Hospitals save the life first, then ask you to pay - in emergency situations. Thats required by law. They cannot refuse to take lifesaving emergency action.

However, if its non-life threatening, then yes, they will insure your ability to pay first. If your life isn't in danger, if your not going to die from not having a health procedure done, go out and get a job so you can pay for what you WANT done. Why does it become the responsibility - unasked for, of people that work hard for what they have, to take on the additional requirements and costs so that someone who doesn't want to pay should get something that they don't have to have to live?

I know this sounds harsh, but its the way I see it. It is not my responsibility to pay for you to get your leg mended after you went and broke it riding your ATV. Its not my responsibility to pay for a 17yr old on the other side of the country to have a baby. Its not my responsibility to pay for the illegal aliens who get a sniffle and decide to clog up the emergency room. Its not my responsibility to pay for the treatment of a whacked out druggy who OD'd and will just get halfway healthy just to go shoot up again. Its not my responsibility to provide STD medication to people who can't keep their pants on.

I could go on and on.

I have 2 kids, a lovely woman and myself. THAT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY! And I take care of what I am responsible for. Its about time people started taking responsibility for themselves, instead of trying to push it off on the rest of us when it comes to health care!

[SteamWake]

Glad to hear your feeling better.

Just be glad your not this guy !

THIS crippled plumber horribly broke his arm TEN months ago and is still waiting for surgery to repair it.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2672411/Crippled-man-up-in-arms-over-NHS.html#ixzz0UU9ZyDSK

[XabbaRus]

It often depends where you live in the UK.

My local GP service is useless but the local hospital is great.

And yes it isn't free but it is free at the point of service, so I pay my taxes knowing that if I need surgery I won't land a bill many more times my monthly contribution in taxes and NI.

[Tribesman]

Just be glad your not this guy !

So they cancelled two operations because it was unsafe to operate due to his health, he can't claim unemployment welfare as he is self-employed and he can't claim disability as its fixable.

[mookiemookie]

I know this sounds harsh, but its the way I see it. It is not my responsibility to pay for you to get your leg mended after you went and broke it riding your ATV. Its not my responsibility to pay for a 17yr old on the other side of the country to have a baby. Its not my responsibility to pay for the illegal aliens who get a sniffle and decide to clog up the emergency room. Its not my responsibility to pay for the treatment of a whacked out druggy who OD'd and will just get halfway healthy just to go shoot up again. Its not my responsibility to provide STD medication to people who can't keep their pants on.

Then drop your current insurance and stop paying taxes because this is precisely what you are already doing. The concept of insurance, public or private, is based upon spreading the risk. If you don't feel someone elses illnesses and injuries are your responsibility, then why do you willingly pay insurance premiums?

[Letum]

I have had nothing but the best service I could want from the NHS; none
of which I could afford otherwise.

It is obscene that there are still affluent countries in which life and health
are things that are bought by those that have the money and forfeit for
those who don't, due to their own mistake or, more often, innocent
misfortune.

[clive bradbury]

Believe it or not, I am intelligent enough to be aware that I pay for NHS care via 'hidden' taxes. However, if you include US state taxes, the relative rates of taxation vis-a-vis UK/USA are roughly the same.

Unsurprisingly, the Sun story is inevitably going to criticise the NHS. Yet the man in question has been offered two operations (free) via the NHS system. It is hardly their fault that he does not look after himself and thus is unfit for surgery. What are they going to do? Risk his life on the operating table?

Purely as a matter of interest, how would an insurance company in the USA approach his case? Would a 50 year-old smoker with high blood pressure (presumably the former led to the latter) even get insurance in the first place?

[Skybird]

Clive, your starting post is not a "long post", like you promised in the headline.

Believe me, I know! :D

[clive bradbury]

Ok, Skybird, I bow to the master!

Whilst we are are the NHS/private healthcre comparision, could someone from the US answer a couple of questions.

How much is health insurance per annum? Obviously the cover will vary, but how about a ball park figure?

Also, what happens with long-term non-life threatening care? Whereas I am all for people looking after themselves, let me put an argument to you with an example.

My wife's thyroid stopped working about 15 years ago. As a result she needs constant daily doses of thyroxin for the rest of her life. Although the NHS does usually charge for prescription drugs (at a reduced rate) this does not apply in her case as the medication is required long term - she gets all her thyroxin for free.

Now, I am assuming that US health insurance would cover a situation like this, but let's look at the argument for the NHS here. Without the medication my wife would certainly be unable to work, through no negligence or blame on her part, and her life expectancy would be seriously reduced. Yet the wasteful, inefficient NHS provision of free drugs enables her to lead a normal life, work full-time as an accountant, and of course pay her taxes, thus contributing to society. This contribution is not merely financial, as she is a Girl Guide Leader, which is of course voluntary, but is again a regular contribution to our society (hopefully useful) which would be impossible without her medication.

Thus the NHS in cases like this is in fact a sensible investment. The 'cost' of any national health care system needs to be considered in far more depth than the pure financial 'burden'. I am assuming that health insurance premiums for my wife in the USA would be considerably higher, which would effectively mean that she was being punished financially through no fault of her own. A patient with diabetes would be another example. This is why I don't really follow the 'we must look after ourselves' argument.

[Shearwater]

I've never been to the UK for so long as to incure a major illness, but a friend of mine spent a year abroad in Scotland two years ago. He tore or strained his ligaments (I can't remember), but I know that the treatment was really good and completely free of charge (and as he's no British national, he doesn't even pay indirectly for it). It seems that the system is really generous to foreigners :DL

[XabbaRus]

That is part of the issue. If you are an EU national it all gets worked out but I still think they might have to pay something.

Non-EU nationals if there is no state to state agreement should get charged either themselves or to the travel insurance, however hospitals usually don't bother or so it seems. Too much hassle.

Anyway I too would love to know what an average annual health insurance premium is for A) An individual and B) A family.

[clive bradbury]

wouldn't it be better if this statement was

"hernia detected end of July, surgery completed 5 days later."

and it only cost you a deductible or co-pay amount...

i think so. :yep:

Let me ask you a question - if someone said 'do you want to wait four weeks longer and have the surgery at absolutely no cost?' What would your answer be? How many people could have non-essential surgery at five days notice anyway? I know I can't - I work for a living.

[Jimbuna]

Despite the serious overall state the UK NHS finds itself in, it is still admired/envied in many parts of the world.

That's what my local MP (Foreign Secretary) keeps telling me :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

Despite the serious overall state the UK NHS finds itself in, it is still admired/envied in many parts of the world.

That's what my local MP (Foreign Secretary) keeps telling me :hmmm:

I have to go with Jim on this. For every bad story I hear on any health care system outside the US I hear 3 good stories and experiences. Ultimately I do not think it really about taking care of others who do not pay. We do that anyway via our premiums for the care. However, the professional free-loaders is the real issue. People who work the system. I know a few of them and it makes me sick. For me, to be part of the healthcare system the person must be a contributor. It is not up to me to keep carrying the free-loaders FOREVER. Obama said it would be mandatory and a fine levied if a person does not participate. Obama needs to stick to that.

[Letum]

How do you freeload health care?
You can't make money from the NHS.

I suppose you could break your leg every few weeks to get a bed and
hospital food, but prison is an easier way to get a bed and food.

[AVGWarhawk]

How do you freeload health care?
You can't make money from the NHS.

I suppose you could break your leg every few weeks to get a bed and
hospital food, but prison is an easier way to get a bed and food.

Ok, let me explain. I pay for health care. I go to the doctors and get what I need done. Simple. Universal health care under the proposed Obama plan, pay into health care (mandatory) and enjoy health care. Simple. If you do not pay into the universal health care program and expect all the benefits of health care=free-loader. Understand? Read my post again, it states you must be a contributor. Obama said this himself at his unveiling in Congress. If you do not pay into or refuse to pay into then a fine is imposed. Free-loading is over and should be over. I should not have to change all my health care policies, sign up for this and that while the free-loader can still get away with not paying and still get health care. Understand now?

BTW, my first lung collapse I was put in a room with a gentleman faking illness so he could collect his disability check from the state of MD.....screw me and tell me people do not get over on the system. Open your eyes.

[Sailor Steve]

This is just about the most civilized discussion of this subject I've ever seen. Good for you guys!

Both sides have good arguments, and both sides are open to criticism. Of course if that weren't true, there wouldn't be two sides. What at first seems to be about "free" versus "pay" health care is of course really a question of who pays, since as we all know, nothing is free.

The deeper difference I see, and the one that inevitably starts the arguments, is that it's also a question of freedom versus control. Under a free system, which of course is the one where you have to pay, only those who can afford to pay get the service they need. But the other system, where the care is free, can only operate if the authorities are empowered to take whatever monies they need to make the system operate.

I can say that morally it is best that no-one suffer, but that also means that I have to take whatever I can from whomever I want to make that happen, which is of course in itself immoral. Americans don't like the idea of socialism, but one would think that Christians would be the first ones to support a system that protects everyone. That is not meant to demean anyone who is Christian, but rather to point out the seeming paradox of values in any large society; and American society on the whole claims the mantle of Christianity.

I'm against socialized medicine, but I also see that there is a need for people to not be discarded. A friend of mine is not against abortion in general, but he believes that since he doesn't believe in the practice himself his tax money should not go to support it. My argument in that discussion was to point out that that would mean admitting that it was a right but denying that right to someone who didn't have the money for it. He agreed, and we agreed that we didn't really have a definitive answer to the question.

And that's my point here. Both sides are right, and both sides are wrong, and you guys are at least discussing it honestly rather than beating your national chests. Maybe someday we'll actually figure out something that works for everyone.

But I doubt it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Clive,

To answer your question regarding thyroid meds. My lady has the same situation. Every month we pay like $15 for her prescription. Without insurance, the cost would be $35 if memory serves.

Now, regarding insurance costs, the family plan I have, covering 4 people at 90/10 (which is better than the normal plan), costs me aboout $280 a month. This includes dental coverage as well.

As AVG has stated, some of the proposals have suggested that if a person refused to get insurance - either private or through the government "plan", they would be "fined" if they used health care. The numbers put out that I have seen have shown me that the government plan will cost me MORE than my private plan. The problem is always in the details however. I could keep my plan, but any "adjustment" or change in the plan would "invalidate" it, meaning it would be no longer able to be offered. That means if the premium needed to increase, the offering company has the choice of either eating the loss and not increasing the cost, or stop offering the plan. At that point, I would have to join the more expensive government plan - or pay a fine if someone has to go to the doctor.

There is a big push to remove the fine for most people - because its unfair to those that wouldn't get insurance. After all - they must not be buying this golden government cow because they must be poor, and if they are poor, its not fair to fine them. So in essence, all you have to do is show up at the hospital, turn out your empty pockets, and sneeze. Free health care. And those paying for it? People like me, that work, already are paying our own way, and don't feel like carrying more of a load.

Mookie - I understand the concept of spreading the risk. But there is a big difference between a private, paid by choice plan, and universal health care. The majority of people who don't have health insurance are one or more of 3 groups.

People who are very high risk

People who choose for whatever reason to not get coverage

People who can't afford it.

The ones who are high risk are kept out - keeping my premiums more reasonable. The people that choose not to get coverage - don't cost the insurance company a dime, so they don't make my premium increase either. The last group - those that "can't afford it" are those who choose not to work, illegal, or simply down on their luck. For the first and second, I have no sympathy because its called get a job flipping burgers if thats what it takes to make your life better, the second - illegals - are already violating the law just being here and deserve no reward for it, and the last - those down on their luck = SHOULD be getting the benefits of a social safety net that is currently too preoccupied with the first two groups to actually do much to help our own who really need it.

So while my premiums do help out some folks who have hit a rough patch, I also can rest assured those people have been doing the same for me, unlike the pregnant crack whore, the illegal who gets paid under the table in cash to avoid taxes and takes his kid that sneezed once to the hospital, or the lazy fat guy who ate so many Whoppers and Big Macs he has to get airlifted out of his house. Think those folks were helping me out? Think they were "spreading the risk"? No they weren't. They are responsible for their own choices. Not me. I owe them nothing.

Take the homeless vet walking in the winter in the park because he can't get a place. I owe him. The guy just like me that is a plumber, a carpenter, or just the kid working at the drive thru window. They are doing what they can, trying and working to make their own life a little better. How about the guy with broken english and 4 kids? He happens to have a work visa, he pays his share, and he does all he can. He is legal, and respects our way - since its OUR country. He is welcome and I am proud to shoulder the load with him.

Those that sneak across in the dead of night, where their first act is to flaunt our law? No, I am not willing to shoulder that burden.

Look. I realize people fall on hard times. I also realize some people CHOOSE hard times. Ultimately the issue is this. I do not owe ANYONE a right to my money to pay for their health care. Universal health care takes my money, to pay for someone else's care. I don't have a choice in that scheme. Its robbing me to pay for something I don't owe. That's called theft.

Private insurance is a choice. Universal health care isn't. One I choose to pay, the other government takes for the benefit of others without my consent.

In the 1770's, that same type of act caused a rather big uproar. People seem suprised that the same act creates the same result today.

[Sea Demon]

but one would think that Christians would be the first ones to support a system that protects everyone. That is not meant to demean anyone who is Christian, but rather to point out the seeming paradox of values in any large society; and American society on the whole claims the mantle of Christianity.


As a Christian, I can say that it is not Christian to support a system that subjects the life and property of "free" people to the claws of government. Nor is it Christian to create and grow dependancy on such a system. Thusly, government control at the expense of individual freedom is not Christian at all.

It is Christian for individuals to pursue a system that upholds the liberty of people, protects their life and property, and thus can use their own resources to help people under their own free will. America acts as a Christian nation when free individuals are free to help those around them, without empowering government to be the arbiter of who has what at the voting boot. Voting away other people's property or freedom for redistributive purposes is utterly antithetical to Christian values.

Especially as we've seen the poor results of government acting as a charity. Often times it being destructive to many people. I just can't see any Christian helping others through an all powrful government at the expense of freedom, economic liberty, and property rights. I'm of the opinion trying to use government iin this way actually kills the true spirit of giving, as it is actually people being generous with other people's resources.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird.....

Your right that there is a paradox. However, as a man of the cloth, perhaps I can address it.

There is a big difference between a "universal" right to something, and the spiritual gift of compassion. Health care is not a RIGHT, it is a service provided by people who work hard. If it was a RIGHT, then those trained to provide it would have the DUTY to provide it, with or without compensation.

Ultimately, that leads to more demand than its worth to those skilled, and thus a shortage of the needed people. How many medical folks do you think you will have once you start demanding their skills for nothing? Granted - that is an extreme - but its used to illustrate a point.

Compassion on the other hand, is not a responsibility either. Spiritually speaking, it is a character trait to strive for. However, compassion, like patience and other positive things, has its limits. To be compassionate does not mean to turn a blind eye and give the shirt off your back without thought. It doesn't mean to look to "protect everyone". It means to look at those who are suffering and desire a way to try and help. However, in almost every biblical illustration of compassion, it is bestowed upon those in need who are in need due to no or limited fault of their own.

It means look at the children who are hungry or sick and get some people to help provide what they need, by choice. It means look at the man or woman beaten in the street, robbed or worse, and go aid them.

It doesn't mean look at those who choose to harm themselves or others, and provide them "blanket protection". It doesn't mean to see those who refuse to help themselves, and do it for them, or enable them to continue.

Now, before someone rants about being "judgemental" (and that always comes up like its some baseball bat they can hit a christian over the head with), there is a difference between judging a person, and discerning whether your compassion will be wasted. The spiritual gift of compassion is not to be given lightly, and is an individual choice.

I was asked once by a very liberal supporter of universal health care, after they mocked faith and people of faith, "well what would your precious Jesus do?". Thinking he had me in a bind, the fool laughed as if a victory was won. The answer was simple. Jesus would create a perfect remedy. However, we are humans, and we can do no such thing. Thus we must discern where our abilities can best be used to support those who need it. This is why compassion is not a global possibility. We are not the Son of God, we are not perfect, and no system we create ever will be. However, to waste what we can do on those who will choose to take that compassion and throw it away, is to ignore the teachings of Jesus. Mercy and compassion are not catch alls, no more than the blood of Jesus is a credit card to swipe after a sin for forgiveness.

[Sea Demon]

I was asked once by a very liberal supporter of universal health care, after they mocked faith and people of faith, "well what would your precious Jesus do?". You make good points Haplo. Do you know how many liberals I've talked to with this line of reasoning? It is a very weak argument as Christianity is a matter of the individuals soul, not state politics or systems of government. It is not moral to vote away people's property, to the detriment of individual freedom. A liberal often sees the words "free healthcare", and licks his chops over the prospect of turning away yet another personal responsibility to the care of somebody else. Paid for by others through force of government. Liberals don't understand how truly unChristian this is. People should help others. Yet, they should not empower a government to redistribute by force an unwilling people's property.

[CaptainHaplo]

Sea Demon,

Thanks. I do think liberals look at it as "why can't we do for everyone" and think its not so much about lacking personal responsibility, but instead see it as a noble goal. It is. But nobility does not equate to practicality. Liberals often miss how many would abuse a system instead of using it as needed. They see the forest - but they can't see which trees are rotted on the inside. They think "forest management" without considering each sapling, shrub, blade of grass or weed.

There is nothing wrong with a noble purpose, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Intentions are ideas. They sound good alot more often than they actually work.

They also fail to realize that government paying for things costs someone else. Its just like the promise of the US President. He said that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making under a certain amount. Unfortunately, that isn't possible if your going to deliver more than what can be bought with what you have.

Lastly, they do not comprehend that others can disagree with their noble ideals without being petty, selfish, racist, or whatever the term of the day is.

Regarding your stance on christianity and its directives regarding government, the bible teaches respect for authority, be it government, church, or elders. However, Jesus himself worked within the system of government that existed at the time to promote change.

Slavery is one of those that gets brought up alot to me, because many think Jesus tacitly condoned it. However, remember that Jesus stated he was not here to "destroy" (or change) the world, he was here to save it. A follower of jesus who sat at his feet would not keep slaves. But he was not here to take the throne and correct all injustice. Just as Jesus did to work within the system to bring about change, so do many who are against universal health care, making their voices heard but doing no violence.

[Sea Demon]

Thanks. I do think liberals look at it as "why can't we do for everyone" and think its not so much about lacking personal responsibility, but instead see it as a noble goal. It is. But nobility does not equate to practicality.

Yes, Haplo. I don't disagree with your thoughts. In terms of people seeing this process as a "noble goal"...you speak of the classic "do-gooder" liberal. In my opinion, these people simply want to feel good about themselves. And they feel they can do this by micro-managing other people's lives, and being generous with other people's property. Sometimes I'm not sure if they actually want to help anybody, as they never seem to care about the poor results that often happens when their "vision" is implemented. Nor do they give a hoot for personal freedom or personal choice. They just feel they know what's best for everyone. And they are flat clueless. They couldn't actually know what the needs of each individual is. Also, these people never put accountability on those on the receiving end of their so called "generosity". I guess that's easy, since they're voting away the property of total strangers.

But the other side of the coin Haplo is the liberal who talks a big game, but is simply interested in alleviating their own personal responsibility. They simply want others to pay for part of their existence. Hell, they feel owed and entitled. These types do exist. And unfortunately, the "do-gooder" has a symbiotic relationship with these types. They feed off eachother. And it has proven to be economically ruinous to this nation.

In terms of Christianity, it was never the intention of Christ to make people dependant on the vices of any government. And as you said, he wasn't here to assume the throne and cure all injustices. Christ was concerned for the soul of mankind. And man's free choice to serve his fellow man. The soul cannot do this by force of any government. Christ is greater than the state. Therefore, empowering government at the expense of personal liberty simply corrupts this vision IMO. "Assisting" others with other people's stuff at the voting booth is not generosity. In the end, I don't begrudge the TRULY poor from seeking assistance. Yet, there has to be an end to the ambitions of the so called "do-gooders". The deficit generating (bloated/government run) healthcare ambition in this country breaks the limit. And if there are no limits, than we have no freedom at all. Nor do we have individual liberty or freedom of choice. This is called tyranny from where I come from.

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm not sure this is a Christian, Liberal or Conservative argument at all. The argument rests on anyone enjoying the health care needs to be an active contributor to the system. The problem is no matter how many fines imposed there will always be the individual who does not contribute that receives the care anyway. We are still in the same boat then. The plan will not work. The only change we will see is government calling the shots. To me, another government intrusion.

[AVGWarhawk]

Top Senate Democrats intend to try to strip the health insurance industry of its exemption from federal antitrust laws, according to congressional officials, the latest evidence of a deepening struggle over President Barack Obama's effort to overhaul the health care industry.
If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor.



Welcome to the force feeding....


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091021/D9BFEN3G0.html

[OneToughHerring]

I guess the privatization side of the health care debate does rely on stuff like Jesus and miracles. :dead:

[Sailor Steve]

As a Christian, I can say that it is not Christian to support a system that subjects the life and property of "free" people to the claws of government. Nor is it Christian to create and grow dependancy on such a system. Thusly, government control at the expense of individual freedom is not Christian at all.

It is Christian for individuals to pursue a system that upholds the liberty of people, protects their life and property, and thus can use their own resources to help people under their own free will. America acts as a Christian nation when free individuals are free to help those around them, without empowering government to be the arbiter of who has what at the voting boot. Voting away other people's property or freedom for redistributive purposes is utterly antithetical to Christian values.

Especially as we've seen the poor results of government acting as a charity. Often times it being destructive to many people. I just can't see any Christian helping others through an all powrful government at the expense of freedom, economic liberty, and property rights. I'm of the opinion trying to use government iin this way actually kills the true spirit of giving, as it is actually people being generous with other people's resources.
Good reply. I've waffled and wobbled back and forth in my own feelings on what needs to be done and how. My comments were based mainly on my observation of the vast (and vocal) group of self-proclaimed 'believers' who seem to place their country on an equal or even higher level than their God. You (and Iceman, and a few others here) strike me as being much more thoughtful and reasoning than that other group.

[OneToughHerring]

As a medic I know that when a 125 kg (250 lb) guy is wounded in some forsaken forest, Jesus is never around when it comes to actually carrying his ass out of there.

[MothBalls]

I agree with you CaptainHaplo. I don't think responsible people should foot the bill for the irresponsible. As a small business owner I pay more than my fair share of taxes and insurance already.

Right now they are targeting me to pay more to cover people too lazy to work. My unemployment insurance premiums are about to go up AGAIN because they want to extend unemployment payments again. Many of these deadbeats don't look for work because they are getting paid not to. You want to cure unemployment? Quit paying people to not work.

The same thing is going to happen with health care. I'm going to end up footing the bill for those who refuse to buy coverage (just like I do now via higher premiums and taxes). That is 100% wrong. I have zero sympathy for those who aren't responsible enough to maintain their own insurance.

I do think we need health care reforms and some stricter regulations on the insurance industry. Tort reform would be a good place to start. As for the public option, it should be 100% self sufficient. We all know that's a fantasy that will never happen, and dollars to donuts, I'll be the one getting the bill.

[AVGWarhawk]

Looking at this..I think we will be paying no matter what options are available. There will always be the free loader.

[mookiemookie]

Tort reform would be a good place to start.

Tort reform has already happened in TX and CA and has done little to nothing to stem the rising costs of health care.

[Shearwater]

In terms of Christianity, it was never the intention of Christ to make people dependant on the vices of any government. And as you said, he wasn't here to assume the throne and cure all injustices. Christ was concerned for the soul of mankind. And man's free choice to serve his fellow man. The soul cannot do this by force of any government. Christ is greater than the state. Therefore, empowering government at the expense of personal liberty simply corrupts this vision IMO. "Assisting" others with other people's stuff at the voting booth is not generosity. In the end, I don't begrudge the TRULY poor from seeking assistance. Yet, there has to be an end to the ambitions of the so called "do-gooders". The deficit generating (bloated/government run) healthcare ambition in this country breaks the limit. And if there are no limits, than we have no freedom at all. Nor do we have individual liberty or freedom of choice. This is called tyranny from where I come from.

Here's my 0.02$:
First of all, I think that religion should be kept out of politics, and that people who drag it into politics (sorry for my wording, I'm really not getting at you) must stomach the fact that not everyone shares their interpretation. In any case, being a staunch agnostic myself, I can only conjecture what the viewpoint is that you were critically referring to in your post.

In general, I think that the Christian religion is, as a whole, much too fundamental (and basically not actually concered with matters of 'this' world) to allow for any ready made answers in political issues such as these. Also, I am firmly convinced that there is no simple interpretation of Christianity. Of course, faith is always a personal choice. But living within a society, or at least a community, is part of the human condition. I can see why some people can argue that general healthcare can in fact be some a form of Charity (in the Christian theological sense). I just think that that while a persons's faith is an individual choice, Christianity can very well have a social dimension.

Hope that didn't sound offensive - as I've said, it's only a hypothesis.

[XabbaRus]

Despite the serious overall state the UK NHS finds itself in, it is still admired/envied in many parts of the world.

That's what my local MP (Foreign Secretary) keeps telling me :hmmm:

Although I agree with you I pity you your (not maybe yours) choice of MP.

Milliband is a ****.

As for professional freeloaders, well the freeloader is a risk you take with national health care and benefit systems, however I think you will find they make up a small number of claimants.

I also have to disagree with statements about why you shouldn't have to pay for people who make no contribution.

What about someone who was in gainful employment (the majority of the population) who due to the recent crisis has lost their job. So for the time they are out of work they don't make contributions. If they are like most people they will be looking for work and eventually find work, thus they start making contributions again.

You see that is why we pay taxes and National Insurance over here in hte UK. I know that I have paid my way so if things go to rat**** I have contributed along with the majority of people to the safety net that is there if I should need it. Therefore I do not begrudge paying my taxes. True they need to crack down on freeloaders and in the UK they are starting to.

I do agree however you can make money out of being sick, but there are ways to crackdown. They are starting that here, and yes it is unpopular, but only amongst those who know they will be busted.

However on balance I am glad we have an NHS. BTW I don't see what being a Christian really has to do with it all.

[AVGWarhawk]

Tort reform has already happened in TX and CA and has done little to nothing to stem the rising costs of health care.

Tort reform is only one part of the larger picture of problems. Even if it has done very little it still has done something. A bunch of 'little something' add up to a lot of somethings.

[AVGWarhawk]

As for professional freeloaders, well the freeloader is a risk you take with national health care and benefit systems, however I think you will find they make up a small number of claimants.


Still a number we have to pay for. Unfortunate that will be status quo.

I also have to disagree with statements about why you shouldn't have to pay for people who make no contribution.

What about someone who was in gainful employment (the majority of the population) who due to the recent crisis has lost their job. So for the time they are out of work they don't make contributions. If they are like most people they will be looking for work and eventually find work, thus they start making contributions again.


If you paid in and loose a job should not automatically make you loose coverage. Even here in the states you can get Cobra Insurance if you loose your job. You are not left in the cold.


You see that is why we pay taxes and National Insurance over here in hte UK. I know that I have paid my way so if things go to rat**** I have contributed along with the majority of people to the safety net that is there if I should need it. Therefore I do not begrudge paying my taxes. True they need to crack down on freeloaders and in the UK they are starting to.


Safety net here is Cobra Insurance. Also your savings. It is recommended you save at least 3 months of salary in case something happens. That seems smart to me. I lost my job and was jobless for 3 months. I lived on my savings. I did not apply for unemployment that I was entitled to. Just they way I am.


I do agree however you can make money out of being sick, but there are ways to crackdown. They are starting that here, and yes it is unpopular, but only amongst those who know they will be busted.


People work the system for financial gain. Happens all the time. It is called fraud. Need more following up on claims that are false.


However on balance I am glad we have an NHS. BTW I don't see what being a Christian really has to do with it all.

I do not see this as a Christian dealing at all. Not sure how that got in the mix.

[MothBalls]

What about someone who was in gainful employment (the majority of the population) who due to the recent crisis has lost their job. So for the time they are out of work they don't make contributions. If they are like most people they will be looking for work and eventually find work, thus they start making contributions again.


(not directed at you specifically, mainly Americans in general)
It's called being a responsible adult. Before buying a luxury car, iPhone, new computer and racking up 25,000 in credit card debt, people should have savings/investments/portfolios to back themselves up for an extended period of time. Too many lay blame on "circumstances beyond their control". Bullchit. The only thing beyond their control is their own spending habits.

Too many in the US live from check-to-check and can't even go a few weeks without a paycheck. Those are the people I have no sympathy for. I don't feel obligated to provide support for stupid people. Rainy days happen to all of us at one time or another. Not my fault if someone isn't ready for one. The ones who collect unemployment for 36-53 weeks, now will also collect heath care as well, on my dime.

[AVGWarhawk]

Too many lay blame on "circumstances beyond their control". Bullchit. The only thing beyond their control is their own spending habits.



That is an understatement if I ever heard one. There are many who blame it all on someone else. Most just need to look in the mirror to find the offender.

[OneToughHerring]

I don't think I've ever met an American who has lived in both US and Finland who would prefer the US health care. Or US anything. Well, weather maybe. The one in Florida, not Buffalo. :)

[AVGWarhawk]

I don't think I've ever met an American who has lived in both US and Finland who would prefer the US health care. Or US anything. Well, weather maybe. The one in Florida, not Buffalo. :)

Florida weather sucks.

[Jimbuna]

I don't think I've ever met an American who has lived in both US and Finland who would prefer the US health care. Or US anything. Well, weather maybe. The one in Florida, not Buffalo. :)

Is the grub (steaks and submarines) really that good in Finland!! :o

[Tribesman]

I do not see this as a Christian dealing at all. Not sure how that got in the mix.
It's internet bingo, all that was missing was communist , liberal media and constitutional.
So close but no win yet.

As for the "christian" thing, that carpenter fellow was quite clear about taxes, he also had a lot to say about those who broadcast how religious they were and how responsible and generous they had been with their lives.
It appears the old adage is very true, the louder the "faithfull" shout the less their faith really is.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's internet bingo, all that was missing was communist , liberal media and constitutional.
So close but no win yet.

As for the "christian" thing, that carpenter fellow was quite clear about taxes, he also had a lot to say about those who broadcast how religious they were and how responsible and generous they had been with their lives.
It appears the old adage is very true, the louder the "faithfull" shout the less their faith really is.

Never heard of that old adage.

[mookiemookie]

Bullchit. The only thing beyond their control is their own spending habits.

What about the millions of Americans who work hard and can't afford insurance, but don't qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP? Do they not exist despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary? Or is it perhaps easier to blame the individual rather than admit the system is flawed? Not everyone without health insurance is walking around with Prada clothes on and driving a $100,000 Benz.

[Tribesman]

Never heard of that old adage
Its common over here, then again we have quite a history of very "religious" people. It must have been common in that carpenters time too as he tells tales of it.
So as a general guide when someone introduces "as a christian..." into a topic (especially where it seems irrelevant)there is a fairly high chance that they are really about as Christian as a toe nail clipping from bhuddas left foot.

[AVGWarhawk]

What about the millions of Americans who work hard and can't afford insurance, but don't qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP? Do they not exist despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary? Or is it perhaps easier to blame the individual rather than admit the system is flawed? Not everyone without health insurance is walking around with Prada clothes on and driving a $100,000 Benz.

I have never had a job that did not provide some form of health insurance. I would not accept a job that did not have a program for health insurance. If an individual does take a job that does not offer health insurance that is their choice. No one forced this person to take the job.

[mookiemookie]

I have never had a job that did not provide some form of health insurance. I would not accept a job that did not have a program for health insurance. If an individual does take a job that does not offer health insurance that is their choice. No one forced this person to take the job.

Being able to pick and choose which job to take is a luxury that many people these days don't have.

[XabbaRus]

(not directed at you specifically, mainly Americans in general)
It's called being a responsible adult. Before buying a luxury car, iPhone, new computer and racking up 25,000 in credit card debt, people should have savings/investments/portfolios to back themselves up for an extended period of time. Too many lay blame on "circumstances beyond their control". Bullchit. The only thing beyond their control is their own spending habits.

Too many in the US live from check-to-check and can't even go a few weeks without a paycheck. Those are the people I have no sympathy for. I don't feel obligated to provide support for stupid people. Rainy days happen to all of us at one time or another. Not my fault if someone isn't ready for one. The ones who collect unemployment for 36-53 weeks, now will also collect heath care as well, on my dime.

Trust me Even though I am earning above the national average with my mortgage, taxes, food prices and bills there ain't much left over to save. So I can't help taking it personally as I think you would consider me a stupid person should I lose my job.

What is left goes on activities for my kids. I'd love to save more each month but it isn't always that easy. I don't have a luxury car, in fact I have a hand me down sub sub compact which I'd love to change but can't and the bigger ticket items were presents.

You know we'll have to agree to disagree but I'll keep my system with its faults rather than yours. Sorry but even with the minority who rip off the system I'll take mine. It's called social responsibility.

[CaptainHaplo]

I took a pay cut earlier this year to keep my job. My lady was able to find a gig after losing her position, also at less money. Still we were able to make it.

Know what gets my goat? I work 40+ hours a week (as much as my employer will allow), she has even brought work home on the weekends.
Now we have had additional costs crop up because the kids have started school. Child care in afterschool for 2 children through the YMCA. Cost is an extra 520 to 650 per month. Since school has started, that has cut into our finances drastically, and has us now digging through our savings. We both are looking to see if maybe some part time work is available to help out. Do you see me in here moaning about it? Do you see me saying that the government owes me childcare? Or how about just the extra money my insurance is costing me to keep my family covered? No - you don't.

The government, and the citizens of this nation, don't owe me anything of the sort. Do I expect a bailout or feel I need to whine? No, many other people are in the same boat as I am, and yet here comes the government telling me that because I work, because I have a job, because I have insurance, I need to PAY MORE for everyone else. I am watching what we have worked for be slowly wittled away while I am pushing through this mess and doing all I can to keep my family above water, and I have the government trying to add more to my burden.

Then, on top of it, for those who say no to this, we are called every name under the sun, labeled racists, bigots, even "religious fakes" all because we don't want to be drowned.

Well - and I say this in the most heartfelt way possible to Government.

NO!


I will continue to bust my arse to do for my family, and if I have anything to spare when my kids are taken care of, I might spare it for someone who needs it. But I'll fight like hell to keep the government from drowning us so it can take from my family and give it to someone else.

As for the religious question - Christianity was brought into the discussion by Skybird, whom I believe would be more than happy to disclaim any association with the christian theology, though I think he has stated its ideals are reasonably worthy most of the time. Though I am not suprised some would use any opportunity to attack or demean those of faith.

*Editted to insure clarity of meaning*

[Tribesman]

As for the religious question - Christianity was brought into the discussion by Skybird
It was Sailor Steve.
though I think he has stated its ideals are reasonably worthy most of the time.
The ideals are indeed worthy, though scripture doesn't seem to support the "christian" message some are portraying.
Though I am not suprised some would use any opportunity to attack or demean those of faith.
Actually it is questioning the portrayed "faith" here not those of faith. Consider the humble widow in the synoptics and the "worthy" men who broadcast their "rightousness".

[AVGWarhawk]

Trust me Even though I am earning above the national average with my mortgage, taxes, food prices and bills there ain't much left over to save. So I can't help taking it personally as I think you would consider me a stupid person should I lose my job.

What is left goes on activities for my kids. I'd love to save more each month but it isn't always that easy. I don't have a luxury car, in fact I have a hand me down sub sub compact which I'd love to change but can't and the bigger ticket items were presents.

You know we'll have to agree to disagree but I'll keep my system with its faults rather than yours. Sorry but even with the minority who rip off the system I'll take mine. It's called social responsibility.


Know what I do? I opened a savings account at the bank. I then signed up for online banking for this account. Every Friday I simply do an electronic transfer of $10-$20. Then forget about. Account does not exist unless monies are need above and beyond the normal expenditures. Really, you will not miss that $10.00 every week. At the end of 52 weeks you have $520.00 in savings. Does not seem like much but it is $520.00 you can lean on if needed. PS, I also to the same for my girls. $10.00 each every friday. Take me less than 3 minute to sign in and transfer. Some accounts do it automatically for you. :03:

[AVGWarhawk]

Being able to pick and choose which job to take is a luxury that many people these days don't have.


How does BS grab you? The picking and choosing come down to two things...willing to work any job and will it pay more than my unemployment? Come on man, my wifes side of the family has more people working the system then I care to count. These are people who have been offered good jobs but they would prefer to sit at home collecting unemployment and have no health insurance that would be offered as part of the employment package. There is one person who works in my wife's aunt's house, her one cousin who did not qualify for unemployment checks by the state. She found a job at Best Buy that offers health care. She likes the job. She is covered for health. She is paying taxes.

[XabbaRus]

I understand what you are saying AVG and I fully agree, just at the moment its not working.

CaptainHaplo I'm not here whining I'm just pointing out it isn't all that simple.

There is also no need to reply with "Bite Me" in big red letters.

[Sailor Steve]

It was Sailor Steve.
Yes it was, and I apologize. My intent was to look a the philosophy of both sides of the private vs government argument, and the conservative vs liberal argument as it pertains to this question. My comments didn't really concern Christianity in and of itself so much as the 'Religious Right', who involve themselves in politics and espouse what seems to be a radical conservative agenda, when I had thought they would be more liberal in outlook.

But that argument was answered, and I wasn't the one who started any diatribes. Still, I'm sorry it turned in that direction.

[Tribesman]

My comments didn't really concern Christianity in and of itself so much as the 'Religious Right', who involve themselves in politics and espouse what seems to be a radical conservative agenda, when I had thought they would be more liberal in outlook.

Yep, weird isn't it . But it's nothing new which is why it is so easy to draw on the teachings they claim to follow.
If however someone could find a nice bit of scripture that said....... "give the government its tax money unless you think that the government is wasting its tax revenue and you worked hard for that money" Or "if you have two cloaks give one to someone who hasn't got one unless that person is a ****ess waster who is freeloading off your hard work and couldn't be bothered to buy their own cloak" ......then it would make sense for the "religious right" to be making those "As a Christian....." statements, but as it doesn't then those "christian" statements ring as hollow as an old lecture by Ted Haggard on family values and the evils of drug fueled gay sex.

[Platapus]

BTW, my first lung collapse I was put in a room with a gentleman faking illness so he could collect his disability check from the state of MD.....screw me and tell me people do not get over on the system. Open your eyes.

In any program, government or commercial, there will always be people trying (and succeeding) to scam the system. That should not be a reflection on the system but on the criminal.

The question is: What percentage of people taking part in the program are "good people" and what percentage are "bad people"?

If a government/commercial program has 99.99% of the participants playing by the rules and 0.01% scamming the system, oh well, no need to cancel the entire program.

Even if it is 99% vs 1%. Shoot, lets really go wild 90% good vs 10% scumbags, what difference does it make? Especially if it will cost more to monitor the system to catch the few scumbags and it would cost to let them in. The program is helping 90% of the good people. Yeah it sucks that 10% are scumbags scamming the system but in any system there will always be scumbags scamming the system.

The goal should be to take reasonable precautions that are economically sound to keep the number of scumbags as low as practical. The ones that slither through, let em. Concentrate on helping the vast majority of good people that need work.

Any system that excludes 100% of the scumbags guaranteed will also be allowing well deserving good people slip through the cracks.

My opinion: It is worth allowing a few scumbags to scam the system in order to ensure that we help all the good people we can. Cost of doing good work.

YMMV

[Jimbuna]

Crikey! I'm away for a day or so and look what's happened here http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img231/1076/shockedvi8.gif

[CaptainHaplo]

What happened?

[Jimbuna]

What happened?

The usual GT discussion ensued :DL

[OneToughHerring]

Is the grub (steaks and submarines) really that good in Finland!! :o

Well we've got reindeer stew if you're into that.

http://frozenreindeer.com/2007/05/21/reindeer-stew-with-photos/

And "mämmi" (a kind of malt pudding).

http://www.ahousecallednut.com/a_house_called_nut/2009/04/finnish-easter-pudding-recipe.html

[Jimbuna]

Well we've got reindeer stew if you're into that.

http://frozenreindeer.com/2007/05/21/reindeer-stew-with-photos/

And "mämmi" (a kind of malt pudding).

http://www.ahousecallednut.com/a_house_called_nut/2009/04/finnish-easter-pudding-recipe.html

They both look okay....I'll be sure to try them if I ever visit Finland :up:

[AVGWarhawk]

In any program, government or commercial, there will always be people trying (and succeeding) to scam the system. That should not be a reflection on the system but on the criminal.

The question is: What percentage of people taking part in the program are "good people" and what percentage are "bad people"?

If a government/commercial program has 99.99% of the participants playing by the rules and 0.01% scamming the system, oh well, no need to cancel the entire program.

Even if it is 99% vs 1%. Shoot, lets really go wild 90% good vs 10% scumbags, what difference does it make? Especially if it will cost more to monitor the system to catch the few scumbags and it would cost to let them in. The program is helping 90% of the good people. Yeah it sucks that 10% are scumbags scamming the system but in any system there will always be scumbags scamming the system.

The goal should be to take reasonable precautions that are economically sound to keep the number of scumbags as low as practical. The ones that slither through, let em. Concentrate on helping the vast majority of good people that need work.

Any system that excludes 100% of the scumbags guaranteed will also be allowing well deserving good people slip through the cracks.

My opinion: It is worth allowing a few scumbags to scam the system in order to ensure that we help all the good people we can. Cost of doing good work.

YMMV

I agree with you but I think there should be more follow up. I know hand fulls of people that have scammed, are scamming and or planning to scam the system. I'm half way to the phone on turning one in...:03: