Well there?s a couple of fronts to that one. First it's likely that any form of genuine NHS would be in violation of the constitution. Additionally while the U.S has a number of uninsured those who do have insurance get their services on demand. Except for organ transplants there are few waiting lists and the U.S boasts the highest surgery recovery rate and cancer survival rates in the world according to the CDC and NCPA. End result, an NHS is better at low risk chronic problems but the U.S system is vastly superior at high risk procedures such as invasive surgery and cancer treatment.Dark marauder said:Why did the aamericans get all angry over obama wanting a more NHS like system (I am from the UK and just want to know)
Curing the disease makes more money for an insurance company in both the long and short run. Curing a disease makes more money for a drug company in the long run. Your logic is flawed on two accounts.TurboPanda said:To any Americans who think a privatized system gives better care (to those who can afford it) answer me this. What makes more money? Curing a disease or making someone pay for drugs for the rest of their life?
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying the money doctors would lose treating them is less than what they would lose as a result of being sued by the patient? Because clearly that's not the case the majority of the time or else doctors would opt to treat the patients.RaikuFA said:that part was more focused on declining someone based insurance and lawsuitsBrassButtons said:I'm going to let everyone else argue about the rest of it, and just focus on this bit:
How does taking patients without insurance lead to more money? If the patient can pay what an insurance company would, then sure. But if not, the doctor is operating at a loss. And the more such patients the doctor takes, the greater that loss will be.RaikuFA said:i know doctors have mouths to feed, but wouldnt you want to bring more people in than turn them away, thus bringing in more patients and money, instead of a bad reputation?
This is more and more common then people think, but because the majority have insurance they think it only happens to the poor and will never happen to them. However, with hospitals now privatized, if you don't have the right 'permit to live' then you will get screwed over just as much. It is one of the largest loopholes insurance companies use to get out of paying for medical care: "You went to the wrong doctor, we did not approve this and will not pay for your medical care."RaikuFA said:and espesially that hippocratic oath? it seems that in the last few years its been added in "as long as the patient can afford it".
i ask this for two occurances that happened around me
the first was my brothers girlfriends mothers boyfriend(confusing right?) was coughing up blood, the doctor turned him away because they dont accept his insurance, didnt even look at him, just asked him what insurance he had, he told them and they told him to get out. he was dead later that day.
a few years earlier my mom had heart problems, she couldnt breathe so they called an amulance at her work. both my mom and my dad said take her to her doctor. turns out the ambulance works for another hospital and took her there instead. they took care of her but then they told her that her insurance wasnt welcome there, so they kicked her out then sued our family for the bill and service. luckily the judge threw it out due to the fact that the ambulance didnt follow her directions and therefore endangered her life(or something along those lines).
where are the leorios? the tony tony choppers? the derek stiles?* i know doctors have mouths to feed, but wouldnt you want to bring more people in than turn them away, thus bringing in more patients and money, instead of a bad reputation? and i dont think free clinics cover heart problems and coughing up blood
*cookie if you can name all 3 series these people are from
It's ridiculous to consider a country without a national health system first world.Daystar Clarion said:It's ridiculous that a first world country exists without a national health system, but I suppose that's what happens when corporations have such a huge influence.
I believe he was pointing out that turning someone away who has insurance would lead to less money.BrassButtons said:I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying the money doctors would lose treating them is less than what they would lose as a result of being sued by the patient? Because clearly that's not the case the majority of the time or else doctors would opt to treat the patients.RaikuFA said:that part was more focused on declining someone based insurance and lawsuitsBrassButtons said:I'm going to let everyone else argue about the rest of it, and just focus on this bit:
How does taking patients without insurance lead to more money? If the patient can pay what an insurance company would, then sure. But if not, the doctor is operating at a loss. And the more such patients the doctor takes, the greater that loss will be.RaikuFA said:i know doctors have mouths to feed, but wouldnt you want to bring more people in than turn them away, thus bringing in more patients and money, instead of a bad reputation?
If you were at an emergency room it's illegal for them to turn away someone based on insurance coverage, if you took him to a private practice doctor then there's not much you can do.RaikuFA said:and espesially that hippocratic oath? it seems that in the last few years its been added in "as long as the patient can afford it".
i ask this for two occurances that happened around me
the first was my brothers girlfriends mothers boyfriend(confusing right?) was coughing up blood, the doctor turned him away because they dont accept his insurance, didnt even look at him, just asked him what insurance he had, he told them and they told him to get out. he was dead later that day.
RicoADF said:Thank god the system in Australia is different, over here its patients above $ as its government funded (private health cover is avaliable, but not required).
Won't argue, the problem for me has always been the insurance companies and the laws they have bought into position. Doctors are never part of the problem, sure you have some greedy, over-paid, god-complexed bastards out there but they are a tiny minority. The majority are normal people, struggling to survive, in a industry that is run by lawyers and accountants as you said.Booradlee said:/snip.
Oh I agree completly, too much Americanism coming in, I'm sick of that culture invading our country and screwing it up, especially when you can clearly see it doesn't work in the states either. Whitlam was the best thing to have happened to Australia, we have him to thank for Medicare, Centrelink and oh so much moreJinx_Dragon said:RicoADF said:Thank god the system in Australia is different, over here its patients above $ as its government funded (private health cover is avaliable, but not required).
Sadly, one of the reasons I am leaving Australia for good has been the slow take over of capitalism in all aspects of our government. Things have changed a lot since Whitlam was overthrown via coop, and for those who don't know he was a 'commie' that got us out of Vietnam, brought more civil rights to the masses, ended conscription, nationalized education and made it free and nationalized heath and made it free... completely free. Balanced the balance all the while too, at least up to the coop when the opposition simply refused to sign said budget till he removed all this 'communistic crap' that their US allies didn't like the sounds of.
Some of his legacy survived still, people loved the idea of free education and heath care, but it has been weakened slowly over time. This is done by mostly underfunding what they want to privatize, leading to situations where heath care and education are slipping further and further down the ladder. The overall plan has been to make it easier to argue that the system 'does not work and privatization is needed to save it.'
Of course, I have not been in the country much since Howard was voted out of office but I have always seen the two party system the same as the US has where both sides are clones of each other but with differently dyed hair. I won't rant on that here, trust me... it could keep me up all night as it is that bad.
I fixed it for you. There is no charge.RaikuFA said:and espesially that hypocritical oath? it seems that in the last few years its been added in "as long as the patient can afford it".
In Australia there are tax incentives for having private insurance if you earn over a certain amount (though some people might consider them more punishments for not having it) and there usually isn't complaining from people using the public services as urgent cases are dealt with equally. There are also steps to make sure private and publics lists are balanced, so to make the big private money, specialists have to do so much public work. Though our medicare isn't exactly totally free, it's more like the government limits what people have to pay for certain medications and rebates 75-85% of medical visits, though ED and hospital admissions are mostly free.ShadowKatt said:Which is fine until you get one side clamoring about their taxes being jumped to pay for it all and the other side whining that they're not getting equal treatment of the people that bought insurance, which drags you right back to this thread all over again.WolfThomas said:Yay, healthcare debates. But really the thing that gets overlooked in this debate is that in countries that have universal health care, you can still obtain private insurance and faster/better treatment if you can afford it.
I think Obama is making an attempt. Admittedly a half assed attempt that he's kinda forgotten about and is being block by Congress like an incoming bastard sword, but making an attempt nonetheless.Daystar Clarion said:America. Land of the Free (as long as you have money).
It's ridiculous that a first world country exists without a national health system, but I suppose that's what happens when corporations have such a huge influence.