jbk

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 12:13:01 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    ><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 22:43:07 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> >news:[email protected]...
    >> >> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 19:13:38 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
    >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Well, that's your cover. I can go to my doctor here anytime and see
    >> >> him without any deductibles at all. Just a minimal copay.
    >> >
    >> >Copay doesnt exist here
    >> No just endless, expensive prepay.
    >Like health insurance in the USA

I didn't say that that wasn't the case here. I said this silly
assertion that healthcare in Europe is free is complete nonsense. And
it is. They simply endlessly prepay for it. Hardly free.

jbk

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 13:19:53 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >On 6/03/04 13:13, in article [email protected], "Keith
    >Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> No just endless, expensive prepay.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Like health insurance in the USA
    >>
    >> Keith
    >Effectively one pays more in the US. Since the global GNP % is
    >15% in the US and averages around 10% Europe (lower in Britain)
    >the "copay" in the US is 50% higher than in Europe.

Sure and we get a lot better care for sophisticated procedures
developed here too. Which is why so many Americans win Nobel Prizes
for medicine virtually every year. The rest of the world benefits
from that research just as they do for the huge American taxpayer's
subsidization of their drug prices that they then mindlessly claim
makes their healthcare less expensive. Sure, because WE pay for all
this and your benefit. Watch and see what happens if we stopped all
of that. You're just another example that statistics don't lie, liars
use statistics.

    >It is even higher if one takes into account the higher percapita
    >income in the US, the absolute figure comes close to being twice
    >as much.

And don't forget to add that we can get whatever care we need when we
need it without all those European waiting lists. You get what you
pay for.

    >There is a old saying in the US when encountering outrageously high
    >fees. It is: "Where is your mask and gun, Jessé"

And where is your brain making silly posts like this?

jbk

    >> Just like your husband, you can't read. I said sometimes and I said
    >> Europe. Go talk to people waiting for heart transplants in England
    >> for starters.
    >The wait is for donors , just as in the USA
    >Keith


Baloney. That is only part of it. Go watch BBC documentaries in
England like I did and see all the shortages that have been created
there in facilities, etc. due to this system. THAT's a major cause of
this not transplants. And all kinds of other services like hip
replacements, etc.

David Horne

<[email protected]> wrote:

    > Baloney. That is only part of it. Go watch BBC documentaries in
    > England like I did and see all the shortages that have been created
    > there in facilities, etc. due to this system. THAT's a major cause of
    > this not transplants. And all kinds of other services like hip
    > replacements, etc.

There's no doubt that there are a lot of complaints about the NHS, but
many people from the US who move to the UK are very happy with it. It's
not a perfect system. Neither is the US, where a lot of people have no
real access to health care, and HMO's are increasingly restricting the
kind of access which patients have. General statistics on mortality from
various illnesses usually pegs the UK and US on an even keel (though it
depends on the illness certainly), so I think your superiority complex
in this regard is probably more in your mind. In addition, while quite a
few US politicians get worked up about the rights of the unborn, the US
has one of the worst infant mortality rates of a developed nation.
Indeed, given that the US spends almost two and a half times as much per
capita on health than the UK does, the US doesn't have as much to show
for it as you'd expect.

David

--
David Horne- (website under reconstruction)
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Sjoerd

<[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
    > No pay? In Europe? HAHAHAHAHA. Try all those taxes you pay every
    > day to pay for your healthcare.

It is called "solidarity". A word you probably have to look up in a
dictionary.

Sjoerd

Earl Evleth

On 6/03/04 15:59, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > This is sheer nonsense. You simply can't count. Get everyone to stop
    > paying their taxes in France and then come back and tell us what it
    > costs for your healthcare.
`
Talking about complete "nonsense" like "Get everyone to stop
    > paying their taxes"


They also get benefits, son. Everybody counts on that too.

Earl

Earl Evleth

On 5/03/04 19:50, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 17:26:06 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
>> Much of what is legal in the US is illegal in France. Like huge
    >> special interest donations to parties. I think I read that Halliburton
    >> favors the Republicans by 10 to 1 in donations.
    >
    > So what? Labor unions routinely do the same for the Democrats. See
    > NEA.

The Republicans are tied into big money, really big money. The relative
contributions of the unions are zilch in comparison with the Plutocrats.

For instance the oil/energy industry split. in the 2002 elections was

2002

19% Demos
80% Republic

2000 (30,000,000 total)

20%
78%

s. My original posting is an example, facts.

Earl Evleth

On 6/03/04 16:01, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 11:25:49 +0100, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    > >>>> SAMU is faster.
    >>>
    >>> Says who? You?
    >>
    >> Eye witnessed by yours truly.
    >
    > Let's see. You witnessed this SAMU outfit then did a comparative
    > study of the same events being handled all across the US huh?

No, you have this mixed up----

The original passage was

"Have you even been in Paris and called SOS medicins? They are in
you apartment within 30 minutes. That is not emergency care
but guess what, a "house call". Do they exist in the US?"

My answer was

"SAMU is faster"

I was referring to house calls by "SOS medicins". I related
the fact that the "dispatcher" of the SOS service asks
questions to determine if one is suffering from something
more serious requiring and Emergency and SAMU`s intervention.

My answer meant that SAMU was faster than "SOS medicins".
Although the response of SOS is normally rapid (less than
30 minutes) the SAMU intervention is a normally a matter
of minutes.

My personal observation has been that the are rapid.

The question refers to whether "house calls" exist in the US?

They do here, son.

Got it now.

Earl

Earl Evleth

On 6/03/04 16:02, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I didn't say that that wasn't the case here. I said this silly
    > assertion that healthcare in Europe is free is complete nonsense. And
    > it is. They simply endlessly prepay for it. Hardly free.


Sounds like a straw man operation. The difference is that health care is
universal here. And not in the USA. And twice as expensive!

Earl

Earl Evleth

On 6/03/04 16:07, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > And where is your brain making silly posts like this?

You are now in the "thrashing around stage" having lost an argument!

Earl

Frank F. Matthews

David Horne wrote:

    > <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>Baloney. That is only part of it. Go watch BBC documentaries in
    >>England like I did and see all the shortages that have been created
    >>there in facilities, etc. due to this system. THAT's a major cause of
    >>this not transplants. And all kinds of other services like hip
    >>replacements, etc.

    > There's no doubt that there are a lot of complaints about the NHS, but
    > many people from the US who move to the UK are very happy with it. It's
    > not a perfect system. Neither is the US, where a lot of people have no
    > real access to health care, and HMO's are increasingly restricting the
    > kind of access which patients have. General statistics on mortality from
    > various illnesses usually pegs the UK and US on an even keel (though it
    > depends on the illness certainly), so I think your superiority complex
    > in this regard is probably more in your mind. In addition, while quite a
    > few US politicians get worked up about the rights of the unborn, the US
    > has one of the worst infant mortality rates of a developed nation.
    > Indeed, given that the US spends almost two and a half times as much per
    > capita on health than the UK does, the US doesn't have as much to show
    > for it as you'd expect.
    > David

What to expect depends on your understanding of health financing.
Spending in the US is skewed toward the population with employer based
coverage. Much of the extra expenditure is on expensive diagnostic
routines which only occasionally show an impact. But in the cases where
they do they have a massive impact. Also much is spent in treatment in
the last few days of life. Of course, in a few cases it manages to make
them not the last few days and in those cases it is effective and
appreciated.

Much cost differential is caused by the situation that the US health
market must pay for most of the research and profits in the drug
industry world wide. It's what we need to do to have up to date drugs.

That said, the treatment for the uninsured and poor is good, even on a
world standard. A few years ago my wife got a puncture while away in
central Texas and needed a Tetanus booster. In the small town on the
weekend the only treatment she could find was the local charity clinic.
With a small wait they were quick and efficient. Since she could pay
there was a small fee but even then a small amount. If you had no money
it would have been free.

In any system there will be horror stories but I'm happy with the US in
Houston & Earl is happy with the French in Paris. I even have a niece
in the UK who is fairly happy with the NHS.

FFM

Earl Evleth

On 6/03/04 16:51, in article
1ga8gio.1kj9il71drj8j8N%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.co.uk, "David Horne"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Baloney.
    >
    > There's no doubt that there are a lot of complaints about the NHS, but
    > many people from the US who move to the UK are very happy with it.

One should go to the user community and ask what their opinion is.

As for the US, there is growing concerns among Americans about their own
system.

Americans have been hit with a lot of disinformation on other countries
health service and indeed, the British has been the most bad mouthed.

I think this is because complaints are written in English. But the
foreign systems in general are hit with a lot of US medical special interest
propaganda. Few people, like ourselves, has seen both systems in operation.

The important points below is that 62% of Americans would prefer a universal
health care system.

"54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in
the United States"

That is a ³désavoue².

The propagandists will yell "socialism" and the American people are scared
of that word. So a change is not evident.

If you know of a British poll it might be interesting to see

Earl



*****


A poll was ran in the US on this

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/livin...1020_poll.html


Health Care Pains
Growing Health Care Concerns Fuel Cautious Support for Change

Analysis
By Gary Langer


Oct. 20 ‹ Americans express broad, and in some cases growing, discontent
with the U.S. health care system, based on its costs, structure and
direction alike ‹ fueling cautious support for a government-run,
taxpayer-funded universal health system modeled on Medicare.

In an extensive ABCNEWS/ Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin,
62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current
employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to
fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting
lists for non-emergency treatments.

Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system's
costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation's
health care system, including 54 percent "very" dissatisfied.

Indeed, most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall
quality of health care in the United States ‹ the first majority in three
polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000.

Yet apprehension about the system is counterbalanced by broad satisfaction
among insured Americans with their own current quality of care, coverage and
costs ‹ a situation that tends to encourage a cautious approach to change.
While the system is seen to have gaps, flaws and an uncertain future, it's
also seen to work for most people.

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively.
Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or
injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are
satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.

Still, cost concerns are prompting some evasive action: Nearly one in four
Americans, 23 percent, say they or someone in their family put off medical
treatment in the last year because of the cost. (Among uninsured people,
this soars to 49 percent.) And 12 percent say they or someone in their
household bought prescription drugs from a foreign country ‹ a violation of
federal law.

In addition to universal coverage, there are other areas in which the public
favors change. Nearly seven in 10 say it should be legal to buy prescription
drugs from foreign countries, despite the FDA's safety qualms.
Three-quarters favor the $400 billion plan to cover prescription drugs in
Medicare; most would pay higher taxes to fund it. Most also favor the
creation of HMO-based Medicare options that cover prescription drugs but
limit the choice of doctors.

There's long been a schism in concern about health care costs: Most
Americans are dissatisfied with the costs of the system overall, and
apprehensive about their future expenses ‹ but satisfied with their own
current costs.


Public Preference:
Current System or Universal Coverage?

Current system: 32%

Universal coverage: 62%

Universal, with waiting lists for non-emergency treatment: 39%

Universal, with limited choice of doctors: 35%




Current Satisfaction Among Insured Americans

Satisfied with current costs: 64%

Dissatisfied with current costs: 34%



Future Worries Among Insured Americans

Worried about future affordability: 59%

Not worried about future affordability: 40%

That continues, but the gap may be narrowing. In this poll, 64 percent of
insured people remain satisfied with their own health care costs ‹ a sizable
majority, but down from a high of 75 percent in a 1995 ABCNEWS poll. (And
among uninsured people, far fewer ‹ 30 percent ‹ are satisfied with their
costs.)

Moreover:

  Fifty-nine percent of insured Americans are worried about being able to
continue to afford health insurance in the future (a quarter are "very"
worried). This doesn't include those who currently lack health coverage ‹
17 percent of adults in this survey.

  Two-thirds of insured Americans say their health insurance premiums have
been going up lately; a third say they've been rising sharply. Fewer but
still a sizable number, 44 percent, say their deductibles and co-pays have
been rising.

  Most people don't blame their employer: Among those who have
employer-supported plans, just about a quarter say their employer is paying
less of the cost of their coverage. As many say their employer is paying
more.

  As noted above, 54 percent of Americans are now dissatisfied with the
overall quality of health care in this country, up from 44 percent in 2000.
Notably, that includes 52 percent of insured Americans, as well as 67
percent of those who lack insurance.

Directions and Income Gaps

The structure, fairness and direction of the current system raise concerns
as well. Fifty-three percent of privately insured Americans are worried
about losing their insurance because of the loss of a job (three in 10,
"very" worried).

And the ranks of the uninsured ‹ up last year, according to the Census
Bureau ‹ prompt some alarm: Eighty percent (up from 71 percent in 1999) say
it's more important to provide health care coverage for all Americans, even
if it means raising taxes, than to hold down taxes but leave some people
uncovered.

In terms of the future, 64 percent of Americans think the country is headed
toward a system of rationed health care, in which an increasing number of
treatments won't be covered because they're too costly, not essential or
have too little chance of success. And nearly eight in 10 oppose those kinds
of restrictions.

As to be expected in a primarily employer-based program, there is a huge
income gap in insurance haves vs. have-nots. Among Americans with household
incomes of $50,000 a year or more, just eight percent are uninsured. Among
those with incomes under $50,000, the number of uninsured swells to one in
five. Among just those with incomes under $20,000, it grows to nearly one in
three.


Haves, Have-Nots

Income
Insured
Uninsured

$50K and up:
90%
8%

Less than $50K:
79%
21%

Less than $20K:
69%
31%


Similarly, lower-income Americans are much less apt to have private
insurance. Among those with incomes under $20,000, just 30 percent have
private insurance; the rest have government-based coverage (Medicare or
Medicaid), or none. Among people in $50,000-plus households, by contrast, 83
percent are privately insured.

All the concerns cited above underlie the public's interest in universal
care. This poll asks people what they'd prefer ‹ a "universal health
insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like
Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers," or "the
current system, in which most people get their health insurance from private
employers, but some people have no insurance."

Previous polls have asked this differently; one last year asked if people
would support or oppose "a national health plan, financed by taxpayers, in
which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government
plan," and found 40 percent support. The wording in this ABCNEWS/ Washington
Post poll weighs the proposal against the current system, and adds the
Medicare model to the description. Context also can play a role; this poll
asks about universal health after a long and probing series of questions on
the current system.

As noted, support for this universal system is conditional. If it limited
Americans' choice of doctors, support drops sharply, from 62 percent to 35
percent. Likewise, if it meant waiting lists for some non-emergency
treatments, support falls to 39 percent.

There also are political and ideological aspects to views on universal
health. Democrats favor it by more than 3-1, and liberals by 6-1, while
Republicans and conservatives divide evenly. The current system is preferred
by a majority (52 percent) in one group: People with household incomes over
$100,000 a year.

Comparisons With Canada¹s Health System

Views of the government-run universal health system in Canada also show the
public's interest in such a system. Suspending customary chauvinism, just 29
percent of Americans think the overall U.S. health care system is better
than Canada's; more, 37 percent, think it's worse than Canada's.

There are distinctions on particular aspects of the two systems. Americans
by 34-16 percent are more apt to say the U.S. system offers better quality
of care. But by 18-41 percent they say the U.S. system is worse when it
comes to cost; and by a narrower 27-34 percent they see the U.S. system as
worse in terms of availability of coverage.

As noted, personal experience with the current system is positive, which
serves to temper all these concerns. Among all Americans ‹ even those who
lack coverage ‹ large majorities express satisfaction with their quality of
health care (85 percent), ability to see a doctor (83 percent), ability to
see good specialists (78 percent) and ability to get the most sophisticated
treatments (77 percent).

Among uninsured Americans these ratings are lower ‹ but, perhaps
surprisingly, still mostly positive: Sixty-nine percent rate the quality of
their health care positively; 73 percent, their ability to see a doctor; 55
percent, their ability to see top-quality specialists; 58 percent, their
ability to get the latest treatments.

There are areas in which public views do not support some criticisms of the
current system; one is the suggestion that it's too complex to understand.
Instead, 83 percent of insured Americans say they are familiar with the
terms and conditions of their plan (although fewer, 36 percent, are "very"
familiar with these).

Similarly, among those who have a choice of plans (57 percent), eight in 10
again say they are familiar with the options available to them.

In another area, most insured people don't report persistent problems
collecting on their claims. Eighty percent say their plan "tends to pay your
medical expenses without much problem," essentially unchanged since 1997.

Twenty-nine percent say their insurer has refused to pay all or part of a
treatment that they thought should have been covered. Of those who fought
it, just over a quarter did win better coverage.

David Horne

Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In any system there will be horror stories but I'm happy with the US in
    > Houston & Earl is happy with the French in Paris. I even have a niece
    > in the UK who is fairly happy with the NHS.

The point is, given the costs of the US system, everyone _ought_ to be
happy with it, but it has huge problems in terms of coverage. I lived
most of my adult life in the US, so in a way I have more experience with
that system (as someone with fairly good insurance) than I do with the
NHS. I knew enough people who didn't have insurance etc. in the US to
see the kind of misery it can cause- also, when people have their
insurance dropped because of unemployment, and in some cases for simply
being _sick_.

David

--
David Horne- (website under reconstruction)
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

David Horne

Earl Evleth <[email protected]> wrote:

    > If you know of a British poll it might be interesting to see

I don't know of any polls off-hand, but I'm pretty sure that the NHS
frequently tops the list of 'best loved' UK institutions.

David

--
David Horne- (website under reconstruction)
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Earl Evleth

On 6/03/04 17:52, in article
1ga8jzi.1npf4ow1g6l8b6N%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.co.uk, "David Horne"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> In any system there will be horror stories but I'm happy with the US in
    >> Houston & Earl is happy with the French in Paris. I even have a niece
    >> in the UK who is fairly happy with the NHS.
    >
    > The point is, given the costs of the US system, everyone _ought_ to be
    > happy with it, but it has huge problems in terms of coverage. I lived
    > most of my adult life in the US, so in a way I have more experience with
    > that system (as someone with fairly good insurance) than I do with the
    > NHS. I knew enough people who didn't have insurance etc. in the US to
    > see the kind of misery it can cause- also, when people have their
    > insurance dropped because of unemployment, and in some cases for simply
    > being _sick_.
    >


The point I just posted is that according to a recent poll, the American
people are not broadly happy with their system

I found a French poll

http://www.csa-fr.com/fra/dataset/da...i20030809b.htm

which showed that in August of 2003, during the heat wave,
that 81% of French gave a "bien" notation to their system,
18% gave a "bad" notation. Other questions were asked too.

The French are also aware that WHO gave France the top rating
in the world a few years ago and that US ranked well down
on the list, mostly because the US system is not universal
and a lot of people are left out.

The US poll
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/livin...1020_poll.html

On major point ----
****

Public Preference:


Current System or Universal Coverage?

Current system: 32%

Universal coverage: 62%


****

The lack of universality is seen

Income Insured Uninsured
$50K and up: 90% 8%

Less than $50K: 79% 21%

Less than $20K: 69% 31%



Earl