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

[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]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

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.

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

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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