US Adverts on National Healthcare

So not sure how many Yankees have been talking to family back home but one of the most interesting topics flying about is the National Healthcare proposal. At the moment, at least in Pennsylvania, there are a bunch of adverts on TV trying to scare the beegees out of people about the idea of free healthcare.

Recently returning to the States after living in the UK for over six years its been interesting to try and talk about healthcare with people. Have any of you experience the sudden interest from friends and family about the NHS?

Seems to be hot news here at the moment.

DW has mentioned to family and friends not to believe the scare stories that are put out - particularly as they watch Fox News there and she watches it here so sees what they are getting

We don't have the ads here in Maryland yet (or that I've seen) but I reckon it's just a matter of time.

My immediate family, and most of my friends, support any improvement in the US health care system. We'll be watching the saga unfold with great interest.

I've been seeing them here in Wisconsin.  It's such a load of bs, but I'm afraid it'll work.

It's such a load of bs, but I'm afraid it'll work.

That's the problem . I've seen one advert on YouTube (I think the link was posted on a thread here on the forum) and I just hate the thought of all these Americans seeing the adverts and believing the propaganda that the NHS treats its patients badly. Granted, it's not a perfect system but I would take universal healthcare over the US system any day .

co-worker today said "did you know if you have cancer in Canada they can refuse to treat it"

Leave it to Fox News and the right wingers to scare the hell out of people! 

As Obama has said all along (paraphasing), if you have private insurance and are happy with it, then great, stick with it but we need a government program for the uninsured or those with pre-existing conditions that have trouble getting individual private insurance (if they are not employed or their employer doesn't offer it).

Considering people in the US with insurance see the everyday scandals of the insurance companies, I truly don't understand why some people are not willing to embrace a change. 

That said, I had issues with the NHS in the UK (just my opinion) but it seems that France and Sweden do it very well....so maybe the US can find a middle road for good quality healthcare for all. Hmm, I am probably being too hopeful. 

That's the thing Jules. No system anywhere in the world is perfect, and there are scare stories in every one. What seems to be happening among some in the US is just picking up scare stories from countries that have national sealth services to hammer the concept.
Fair enough if the don't want a British model or a Canadian model, if they are starting up then they are in the ideal situation to look around and pick out the best in various countries models to create a system - it doesn't have to be 1 or the other.
But it won't happen and they'll end up with an half-assed system.

What annoys me is when you hear comments such as "we don't want bureaucrats saying what treatment we can get" - no, you'd rather have an insurance company doing it. At least here if the treatment is available you can get it whereas in the US your insurer can say you aren't covered for it.

As Obama has said all along (paraphasing), if you have private insurance and are happy with it, then great, stick with it but we need a government program for the uninsured or those with pre-existing conditions that have trouble getting individual private insurance (if they are not employed or their employer doesn't offer it).

Not so. The current bill before Congress will not allow you to keep your private insurance. You get a grace period of five years to switch over to a government approved program -- less if you buy your own insurance -- upon penalty of swingeing fines at tax time.

This bill was cobbled together in haste and doesn't seem at all like the best of the various models. Not all change is improvement.

The New York Post is not the best source for objective information.

The New York Post is not the best source for objective information.

Either their statements are factually accurate or they're not. They give page numbers in the bill to back up their assertions; they'd be taking an awful risk if they're making this up or distorting it.

Of course it takes a rightward-leaning source to pick at the nits in a leftward-leaning bit of legislation. Doesn't mean the nits aren't there.

If I've got it right, the bill is House Res 676 and the full text is at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.676.IH:  (I couldn't figure out how to access it without doing a search.)

SEC. 104. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE.

      (a) In General- It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.

      (b) Construction- Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the sale of health insurance coverage for any additional benefits not covered by this Act, such as for cosmetic surgery or other services and items that are not medically necessary.

So they haven't got it exactly right.

My dad said to me this week that he has heard that if you are elderly on the NHS, you won't get the same treatment as a young person. He said he was very concerned about this...I told him it simply was not true. I am so concerned that people are just making stuff up and throwing it out there. It makes me feel very sad.

If I've got it right, the bill is House Res 676 and the full text is at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.676.IH:  (I couldn't figure out how to access it without doing a search.)

So they haven't got it exactly right.

That can't be the full document she's quoting. In its .pdf form, that one is only 30 pages and she refers to to well over 500 pages -- though I'm dipped if I know how you'd get the full, page-numbered text. I wish mainstream media sites were better about cross-linking their articles to their sources.

Still, the quote above makes it sound like the only legal private insurance will be for services that are "not medically necessary." What sort of insurance covers unnecessary procedures? I'm trying to imagine the sort of letter you'd have to write to get Blue Cross to fund an emergency boob job.

I am so concerned that people are just making stuff up and throwing it out there. It makes me feel very sad.

I am very concerned about this, as well.  These ads are airing every 15 minutes where I am and my family have already mentioned hearing this and that in ads or on the news... unfortunately, this has started in the midst of my move over and has made for some awkward conversations.