US Adverts on National Healthcare

Of course you won't, because you have no moral grounds for defending the things you do as "essential health care," which they clearly are not.   And isn't it such basic, essential health care with both the NHS and the various proposals in the U.S. are supposed to be about? 

No, it's simply because I refuse to get into yet another debate on this forum about what is and isn't acceptable normal behavior for the human race.

And for the record, you have NO idea what my views on this are.  You don't.  So, don't assign any to me, thank you very much.  I have not said either way what I think about essential health care and what should and shouldn't be covered. Don't think that you have any idea where I stand on this based on where you think I stand morally on some issues.

Fair comment, that does sound very contradictory.  I think the key difference is the degree of autonomy and the nature of the staff employed in the different places - The difference between a large number of scientists and engineers, many of whom will have come from the private sector, versus a department which is almost entirely composed of people who have never been anything but paper-pushers in government offices and seem to have difficulty comprehending that the world doesn't revolve around their methods.

What it sounds like is you're willing to give NASA the benefit of the doubt because you like what NASA does.  And while I'm a fan of space exploration too, I also know that NASA has had some colossal failures, including the initial mirror problems on the $36 million Hubble telescope, the crash of the $125 million Mars Climate Orbiter, the destruction of both the Challenger and Columbia space shuttles, and the deaths of 14 astronauts.

I know that in any large organization (NASA has about 17,000 employees) there are going to be successes and failures, so I'm willing to put up with a certain amount of ineptitude, because that's life.  The problem I have with your "the government is inept except for NASA" argument is you would - I'm certain - be quite critical of the NHS if they'd lost £75 million due to an error caused by one team using metric measurements and one using English measurements.  In the case of the Mars Climate Orbiter, NASA did that exact thing, and you've held them up as an example of excellence in government.  To hold NASA to a lower standard than the rest of the government is unfair and inconsistent.

The "government it totally inept" argument falls apart in the face of reality, which is that the government has both good and bad points, and making any sweeping generalization about the incompetence of the entire government is pointless, especially when you're willing to make exceptions for individual government agencies based on your personal feelings about the worthiness of their missions.

It's the provision that says it will be against the law for any healthcare provider in the United States to perform any procedure on any citizen once that citizen has been denied the right to that procedure or surgery by the Obama Health Board (i.e, the Obama Death Board). (The Health Board is not found in HR 3200. It is found in HR 1, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, not America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

http://www.jonchristianryter.com/Video/090914.html

So if the government says it won't give you treatment, they'll try and make sure nobody else lets you have it either.    

So if the government says it won't give you treatment, they'll try and make sure nobody else lets you have it either.    

Uhh...that council is restricted to advising government on giving grants to medical research projects. It's got nothing to do with any procedure or surgery someone might undergo. I would say it's similare to NICE except doesn't NICE have power to approve/reject coverage details?
Here are quotes from HR 1, §8104:

(b) PURPOSE- The Council shall foster optimum coordination of comparative effectiveness and related health services research conducted or supported by relevant Federal departments and agencies, with the goal of reducing duplicative efforts and encouraging coordinated and complementary use of resources.

(1) COVERAGE- Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.
(2) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS- None of the reports submitted under this section or recommendations made by the Council shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.

{sarcasm} The "Obama Death Board"?  That sounds like it's coming from a non-partisan source, so I'm sure it's 100% accurate.  Good job finding it and letting us all know.  {/sarcasm}

And while I was typing that impleri responded and set the record straight.  Well done!

There's nothing like jumping in at the end of a 22 page thread, but I've completely lost the track of various debates (or should I say arguments).

So, I have some questions:

1. I keep seeing "government controlled health care" being mentioned. Is that right? Or, are we talking about government FUNDED, physician controlled health care? Is that really what Obama is proposing? Or is that what the republicans are saying?

2. Previously, someone mentioned that what good was private insurance that won't cover surgical procedures, and whatnot. Well, that happens in the UK, too. The health insurance I get with my job (a taxable benefit, btw) does not cover anything you can get on the NHS.

3. So that I can further understand the US proposals, let me posit some examples and see how the new proposal would deal with it.

I have a friend with relapsing-remitting MS. In the UK, she gets all her treatment for free. I think she pays for her prescriptions. Now, she's just been told she's going to have to quit work. In the UK, her treatment will be unaffected.

In the current system, in the US, she would lose any health insurance she had through work. How would she pay for her treatment?

Under the new proposals, how would her situation be any different?

4. Let's say, I go out tonight, have a few too many drinks and step out in front of a bus.

In the UK, I would be rushed to A&E, for free. I would be treated, for free. (Obviously, I've paid my taxes, so it's not "free", but it's free at source).

In the US, under current standards, I would have to prove I had insurance, while lying there, possibly unconscious. Right? I've seen this happen first hand.

Under the new proposals, how would it be any different?

Thanks

4. Let's say, I go out tonight, have a few too many drinks and step out in front of a bus.

In the UK, I would be rushed to A&E, for free. I would be treated, for free. (Obviously, I've paid my taxes, so it's not "free", but it's free at source).

In the US, under current standards, I would have to prove I had insurance, while lying there, possibly unconscious. Right? I've seen this happen first hand.

I don't think this is true at all as far as the US is concerned. 

It is not true.  They have to treat you for immediate issues, after that is another issue.

It would be the same in the UK if you were a tourist and didn't have travel insurance.  At least according to the law, not every NHS Trust follows those rules.

For instance I had a nasty infection and needed antibiotics and testing when I was a tourist in the UK, I, naturally, had to pay for all of it and claim it back on my insurance.

For instance I had a nasty infection and needed antibiotics and testing when I was a tourist in the UK, I, naturally, had to pay for all of it and claim it back on my insurance.

When I first visited London I had a horrible infection and had to pay to see a physician and get antibiotics. It cost about £60, I think for the office visit, so I guess after the exchange rate, it would be similar to what I paid in the US for a doctor visit without having insurance.

And yes, I had to go to the hospital a few times without insurance, and they will treat you if you don't have insurance, they just send you a huge whopping bill afterward! 

When I first visited London I had a horrible infection and had to pay to see a physician and get antibiotics. It cost about £60, I think for the office visit, so I guess after the exchange rate, it would be similar to what I paid in the US for a doctor visit without having insurance.

And yes, I had to go to the hospital a few times without insurance, and they will treat you if you don't have insurance, they just send you a huge whopping bill afterward! 

They are required by law to treat you if it is an emergency (cardiac arrest, not breathing, etc) yes? Otherwise they can get sued.

In class recently whenever we discuss public services, health care is usually brought up and of course the US system is heavily criticized. However with some terribly wrong misconceptions. For example, a classmate informed the class that he had heard that in America, neighbors don't help out their neighbor who is ill because they will get set the bill, not true. Someone also uttered that hospitals won't treat you, even in emergencies, if you don't have health insurance, again, not true. I truly wonder where they hear such things...

Someone also uttered that hospitals won't treat you, even in emergencies, if you don't have health insurance, again, not true. I truly wonder where they hear such things...

I was turned away from an ER during a 6-month waiting period for lack of insurance.  I had to drive 40 minutes cross town to a state hospital that would treat me.  If it were more life threatening I would have been treated immediately, I'm sure. Long story...

I don't think this is true at all as far as the US is concerned.  

It is, because it happened to a British friend that was visiting us. He had a concussion, but they left him on a gurney in the corridor because they didn't believe his travel insurance would cover his treatment.

They put a band-aid on the graze on his head and that was it.

So yet, it would happen in the US, which is why it boggles my mind that Americans are in anyway against single-payer health care.

All they're obliged to do is keep you alive. Whoopee.

So, let's make it more clear:


I step out in front of a bus, and suffer only a concussion and a broken leg. Then what would happen?

In the UK, you'd be admitted, the concussion treated and the leg set. And, you'd leave with painkillers and anti-biotics (if necessary). If you were unable to get home, they'd TAKE you home. No bill. No forms.

Would they set the leg in the US if you had no insurance? I know for a fact they wouldn't treat the concussion...

Would they set the leg in the US if you had no insurance? I know for a fact they wouldn't treat the concussion...

I am sure they would care for broken bones and the like. I was treated for a breast infection in the emergency room with no insurance. I wasn't going to die, but I did have red streaks up my neck, so I went to the hospital since it was late on a Saturday night and I had no other choice. I waited nearly all night to be seen and then the doctor honestly just looked at it, prescribed some antibiotics, and sent me on my way. I received a $1200 bill for that.  


ETA: Here in the UK, I had the same problem again and was sent to the breast clinic for an exam with a specialist and given two ultrasounds to make sure it wasn't a more serious problem than it appeared. Which of course, cost nothing other than what I pay into the NHS each month from my salary.

You probably would have waited all night in a UK A&E too LOL

You probably would have waited all night in a UK A&E too LOL

Yep!  No difference there.

I have waited all night in a US ER after a traffic accident once - to be examined and for an Xray after a traffic accident that left me with bruises & abrasions.

Similarly, I waited most of the night in a UK A&E once - for an Xray on a bad knee injury (although after examination & discussion, we agreed that an Xray probably wasn't necessary after all).