American Helathcare reform bill vote - finally!
- Thread starter Naffa
- Start date
I don't think it's confusion in the slightest - unless you are talking specifically about either, when discussing a country's 'healthcare' system they are intrinsically and inescapably linked - you cannot simply ignore the people without access because it's convenient.
And yes, it is something to be said that at least the hospitals and providers of the treatment are not as sociopathic as the insurance providers, in that they will at least provide treatment regardless of funding.
Last edited:
If you turned up to a hospital, they can not turn you away, they have to treat you, regardless of your insurance situation. However, what does suck if you don't have insurance is that if you need a prescription from the doctors - you could end up having to pay $100's of dollars for some pills. In turn, people for go the medicine and stay ill.
Indeed, hence why something like 50% of personal bankruptcies in the US are due to healthcare costs. They treat you, but they still expect payment...
Re: your point - the additional kicker is that the insurance companies use their purchasing power to drive down prices, so the healthcare providers make up their money through the fees they charge uninsured clients.
i.e. an operation might cost an insurance company $5k, because that is all they will pay, but the hospital will charge an uninsured individual $15k as the 'true' cost. So not only are you screwed because the insurers wont provide cover, you are doubly screwed by not having access to the 'preferred' rates charged to the insurance companies.
Re: your point - the additional kicker is that the insurance companies use their purchasing power to drive down prices, so the healthcare providers make up their money through the fees they charge uninsured clients.
i.e. an operation might cost an insurance company $5k, because that is all they will pay, but the hospital will charge an uninsured individual $15k as the 'true' cost. So not only are you screwed because the insurers wont provide cover, you are doubly screwed by not having access to the 'preferred' rates charged to the insurance companies.
Medicine costs have other factors involved in them, for instance the same pills in USA cost far more than in UK due to NHS buying in bulk and thus forcing companies to sell it cheaper to them
It is an issue when people don't compare like with like. Those who claim the NHS care is 'better' because it's more accessible, for example, miss the point.
Too many people excuse our poor care quality because of our access, just as they excuse the USA's access issues because of the high care quality that is available at the well covered (not necessarily rich) end of the market.
The reality is that both systems are poor and need reform.
Which is actually a significant problem with the US market as this creates a market failure/negative market effect on the hospital side, and a negative healthcare effect on the other.
To ensure universal access, you have to have some form of universal payment, the question is how best to manage that payment and use it to ensure access to healthcare.
When I was in the process of relocating to the United States, healthcare was a big concern of mine. I essentially wanted to find an equivalent to the "no worries" cover of the NHS. As far as my search took me, it doesn't exist. You will co-pay and you will have lifetime coverage limits and you will have exceptions and special clauses. It is an uncomfortable feeling insuring your own physical well being in such a way.
I spent quite some time in Detroit last year. An area of the US with probably the greatest contrast of deep poverty and enormous wealth. I felt degraded as a human being from watching clearly very ill and very poor people queue up and buy painkillers in a CVS pharmacy, as I drive off in a company provided V8 SUV to have dinner at a friend's mansion. Those people in CVS didn't need painkillers. They needed a healthcare system that stopped them falling in to the abyss.
Many Americans need to change the way they think about other people in society. As the gap between rich and poor widens ever more, it'll be only a matter of time before most of them find themselves in the growing poor camp, rather than the shrinking rich camp.
I spent quite some time in Detroit last year. An area of the US with probably the greatest contrast of deep poverty and enormous wealth. I felt degraded as a human being from watching clearly very ill and very poor people queue up and buy painkillers in a CVS pharmacy, as I drive off in a company provided V8 SUV to have dinner at a friend's mansion. Those people in CVS didn't need painkillers. They needed a healthcare system that stopped them falling in to the abyss.
Many Americans need to change the way they think about other people in society. As the gap between rich and poor widens ever more, it'll be only a matter of time before most of them find themselves in the growing poor camp, rather than the shrinking rich camp.
Last edited:
even for the chav scum who refuse to do anything?
In my personal opinion, yes, even the "chav scum who refuse to do anything" are human beings and are entitled to a minimum standard of living. We need to break the cycle of hopelessness.
How about when they send a little camera in your mouth and you can physically see the cavity on said plasma screen, as they explain what work they are doing. Or show you where you need to be flossing better.
They are given all the opportunity they need to contribute something to society, by being given a (fairly good) free education.
If they chose to do nothing positive for society, why should the rest of society look after them?
Insurance $14/month.
Cleaning and check up every 6 months? free as preventative care.
Filled cavities: free.
Everything else: free.
Cosmetic stuff and tooth whitening: you pay.
Even without insurance a cleaning/checkup is only $90 and fillings are about $80 per surface.
They afford the nice car by having 8 dentist rooms and a bunch of underlings doing everything except the actual tooth work and the dentist moves between rooms. It's very efficient in terms of service, work and price, because it's driven by competition.
Take someone who is a chav today. Imagine they are 27, a professional "jobseeker" and spend all day down the pub with their mates. Imagine their background, and you will conjure up images of a council house, overweight parents on very low wages etc.
Now take that chav and imagine they grew up in a "successful" household. It's hard to do, because it doesn't tend to happen. It is not a coincidence that people who grow up in impoverished environments to "unsuccessful" parents are far, far more likely to end up in the same place.
Not everyone born in to a poor environment will go on be poor themselves, but those people are the very special ones who are able to look outside of the world immediately around them. I don't consider the vast majority of people, who instead get caught in the cycle, "bad" people, and for that reason I don't think it's fair to let them fester and die.
The best way to achieve social mobility is via education, we already provide a good free education.
If the person refuses to make use of what they are provided with, then I see no reason why we as a society should support them. The welfare safety net should be for those who actually try to do something, and not for those who do nothing.
EDIT: Survival is the most basic of human instincts, if the safety net is removed for the idle then they will have to fall into line and actually do something in order to get the things they require to survive.
Last edited:
The problem is that this is a result of our welfare system as much as anything else...
I'm sorry, but we don't provide a good free education. Millions leave school with very poor standards of language, numeracy and knowledge of the sciences. There are some schools that do well but, for example, the secondary comprehensive I attended managed to get 15% of it's students to achieve 5 A*-C GCSEs. It comes as no surprise to me that today, the majority of my schoolmates are not fulfilling their potential. You could argue that at 14-16 they would have been somewhat responsible for their own education, but I would bet if you look at their primary school experiences, they will have been similarly uninspiring.
People do not turn from decent people in to chavs at 25 or 30 or 40. This is because the way you will approach your life is determined at an early age and, generally, it's not within your control.
Arguably so, yes. The welfare system should be focussed towards self-empowerment rather than reliance. No-one should grow up believing that it is an entitlement or an avenue to go down before any other.
Last edited:
Well that part is true at least - unfortunately most often that 'something' tends to be turning to crime and/or gangs to provide the 'safety net' for the desperate, when there is none provided by the state for the worst-off in society.
You say everyone has an equal opportunity because 'free education' is there, yet are completely blind to the multitude of other factors. What about people that have to leave education to care for their sick relatives, because there is no health insurance to cover them. Or people that get sick, and have no health coverage, so cannot take advantage of the education system available to them? Do they just get an 'unlucky bud, maybe you'll be better off in your next re-incarnation'
Last edited:
Quite. If you look at countries that do not have these safety nets, they're rarely a massive success. The US, for example, is not a bastion of social mobility for the many. The US is great for the "big break" opportunity, but the number of people who get that break is infinitesimally small.