jbk

While most of this post is correct, it is nonsense to say that
European healthcare is more available than in the US. Availability of
healthcare here is the US in NOT the issue. Being able to pay for it
is. It has been US law for several decades now that anyone going to
an emergency room of a hospital receiving Federal funds (and which one
is not?) can get medical care whether they pay for it or not. Second,
availablity depends on WHAT the problem is and in lots of places in
Europe you have lone (to very long) waiting lists to get medical care
for conditions that you can either get immediately here or in a much
shorter period of time. This is typical European blather which simply
ignores the facts.



On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:20:40 -0700, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >VacuumHead wrote:
    >> In general, how is the quality and availability of healthcare in
    >> Europe?
    >> My American family, none of them have been abroad, insist American
    >> healthcare must be better and more available. I've heard the opposite
    >> from actual Europeans and Yanks who went abroad.
    >I don't know whether American healthcare is "better" or not, but unless
    >you are fairly affluent, it CERTAINLY isn't as "available"! From all
    >I've heard from European friends, It's better and more available to
    >EUROPEANS in Europe - unfortunately the U.S. has no reciprocal
    >agreements re healthcare with other countries. Consequently, when
    >Americans travel abroad, it's important to be sure that either your U.S.
    >health insurance will cover you outside our borders, or you have travel
    >medical insurance (even if you don't bother with other forms of travel
    >insurance). A lot of American "senior citizens" for whom Medicare is
    >their primary insurer just assume that it covers them overseas, and it
    >does not! (Nor do many Medicare "supplement" policies, although I have
    >friends who claim theirs do.)

jbk

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:48:53 +0100, "Mark Hewitt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >"VacuumHead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> In general, how is the quality and availability of healthcare in
    >> Europe?
    >> My American family, none of them have been abroad, insist American
    >> healthcare must be better and more available.
    >Why must it?
    >Not suprising however. I've met several Americans who were really suprised
    >that other countries were as developed or even more so than the United
    >States. There seems to be a belief amongst some that they are the only
    >developed country in the world :-\

Maybe it has something to do with waiting lists in Europe, Nobel
prizes won in Medicine by Americans, 90% of pharmaceutical R and D
done in the US, the most advanced and innovative procedures in general
done here, research, etc?

Tim Challenger

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:48:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

    > ... and in lots of places in
    > Europe you have lone (to very long) waiting lists to get medical care
    > for conditions that you can either get immediately here or in a much
    > shorter period of time.

Such as?
--
Tim C.

Tim Challenger

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:50:20 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

    > Maybe it has something to do with waiting lists in Europe

What waiting lists?
--
Tim C.

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, Tim
Challenger <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:48:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > > ... and in lots of places in
    > > Europe you have lone (to very long) waiting lists to get medical care
    > > for conditions that you can either get immediately here or in a much
    > > shorter period of time.
    >
    > Such as?

Hip replacement, about 2 months waiting time in the UK.

jay
Tue Jul 20, 2004
mailto:[email protected]

Keith Willshaw

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > While most of this post is correct, it is nonsense to say that
    > European healthcare is more available than in the US. Availability of
    > healthcare here is the US in NOT the issue. Being able to pay for it
    > is. It has been US law for several decades now that anyone going to
    > an emergency room of a hospital receiving Federal funds (and which one
    > is not?) can get medical care whether they pay for it or not.

Not quite. The regulations require that they provide
such emergency medical care as is required to stabilise
your condition. If you present with a chronic disease they
will keep you in until you are stable and then discharge you.
If you require an amputation you'll get that but dont
imagine they have to provide you with a prosthetic.

Such emergency treatment is NOT free. If you have any assets
at all they WILL pursue you for payment and if you default
then bankruptcy is all too common. In addition most health
insurance schemes have a lifetime cap (mine was $ 1million)
above which you have no cover. A good friend of mine
in Chicago lost his wife to Cancer and in addition to the
bereavement lost his life savings as he had to pay for the
chemotherapy after they exceeded the health cover.


    > Second,
    > availablity depends on WHAT the problem is and in lots of places in
    > Europe you have lone (to very long) waiting lists to get medical care
    > for conditions that you can either get immediately here or in a much
    > shorter period of time. This is typical European blather which simply
    > ignores the facts.

Those procedures that have long waiting lists are usually for
non life threatening conditions. Typical examples are hernia
repairs, joint replacements etc. Such treatment is only available
in the US if you have insurance or the means to pay. There
are private hospitals in Europe too so that option is open
to those unwilling to wait.

In fact private health insurance is MUCH cheaper in the UK
than the USA as primary care and drugs are still supplied
by the state system. Having lived in both the UK and USA
there's no doubt in my mind that health care is more generally
available in the UK. Any citizen (or visitor) can visit an NHS
doctor without the issue of payment even being raised.

There is no lifetime cap on cover.

Bottom line is for the rich healthcare in the US is
marginally better and much more comfortable but
for the poor and middle class European services
(and Canadian) offer muc better coverage.

Keith

Keith Willshaw

"Go Fig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:200720040609549261%[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, Tim
    > Challenger <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:48:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
    > >
    > > > ... and in lots of places in
    > > > Europe you have lone (to very long) waiting lists to get medical care
    > > > for conditions that you can either get immediately here or in a much
    > > > shorter period of time.
    > >
    > > Such as?
    > Hip replacement, about 2 months waiting time in the UK.

Not a procedure available at an emergency room
in a US public hospital.

Keith

Tim Challenger

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 06:09:54 -0700, Go Fig wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, Tim
    > Challenger <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:48:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
    >>
    >>> ... and in lots of places in
    >>> Europe you have lone (to very long) waiting lists to get medical care
    >>> for conditions that you can either get immediately here or in a much
    >>> shorter period of time.
    >>
    >> Such as?
    >
    > Hip replacement, about 2 months waiting time in the UK.

That's pretty good. What's the waiting time in the other "lots of places"?
How does that compare to the US?

--
Tim C.

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, Tim
Challenger <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 06:09:54 -0700, Go Fig wrote:
    >
    > > In article <[email protected]>, Tim
    > > Challenger <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:48:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> ... and in lots of places in
    > >>> Europe you have lone (to very long) waiting lists to get medical care
    > >>> for conditions that you can either get immediately here or in a much
    > >>> shorter period of time.
    > >>
    > >> Such as?
    > >
    > > Hip replacement, about 2 months waiting time in the UK.
    >
    > That's pretty good. What's the waiting time in the other "lots of places"?
    > How does that compare to the US?


I can't say for the other places, but extended waiting periods seem to
go hand in hand with universal coverage. In the U.S. a state funded
hip replacement will be completed in 7-10 days. Waiting for needed
procedures, for those who have coverage, just isn't a complaint in the
U.S.. But as the U.S. moves to more "managed care" with
'gatekeepers'... that will change.

jay
Tue Jul 20, 2004
mailto:[email protected]

Frank F. Matthews

Perhaps the whole discussion has to do with the silly concept that there
is such a thing as "European Healthcare". As diverse as is health care
in the US Europe is orders of magnitude more diverse. There is simply
no comparison between health care in France and that in Romania, for
example. Waiting lists are a problem in some countries and not in others.

Tim Challenger wrote:
> What waiting lists?

    > On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:50:20 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
    >>Maybe it has something to do with waiting lists in Europe

Tim Challenger

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:06:05 GMT, Frank F. Matthews wrote:

    > Perhaps the whole discussion has to do with the silly concept that there
    > is such a thing as "European Healthcare". As diverse as is health care
    > in the US Europe is orders of magnitude more diverse. There is simply
    > no comparison between health care in France and that in Romania, for
    > example. Waiting lists are a problem in some countries and not in others.
    >
    > Tim Challenger wrote:
    > > What waiting lists?
    >
    >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:50:20 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
    >>>Maybe it has something to do with waiting lists in Europe

Exactly. "A generalisation to the point of inaccuracy" as my old Biology
teacher used to say.

--
Tim C.

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, Tim
Challenger <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:06:05 GMT, Frank F. Matthews wrote:
    >
    > > Perhaps the whole discussion has to do with the silly concept that there
    > > is such a thing as "European Healthcare". As diverse as is health care
    > > in the US Europe is orders of magnitude more diverse. There is simply
    > > no comparison between health care in France and that in Romania, for
    > > example. Waiting lists are a problem in some countries and not in others.
    > >
    > > Tim Challenger wrote:
    > > > What waiting lists?
    > >
    > >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:50:20 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
    > >>>Maybe it has something to do with waiting lists in Europe
    >
    > Exactly. "A generalisation to the point of inaccuracy" as my old Biology
    > teacher used to say.

Fredrick the Great- "If you try to hold everything, you hold nothing."

jay
Tue Jul 20, 2004
mailto:[email protected]

jbk

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:56:07 +0200, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:50:20 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
    >> Maybe it has something to do with waiting lists in Europe
    >What waiting lists?

Try Sweden where the Health Minister had to resign recently because of
them. The UK, etc. etc.

jbk

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 06:50:01 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, Tim
    >Challenger <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 06:09:54 -0700, Go Fig wrote:
    >>
    >> > In article <[email protected]>, Tim
    >> > Challenger <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:48:38 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>> ... and in lots of places in
    >> >>> Europe you have lone (to very long) waiting lists to get medical care
    >> >>> for conditions that you can either get immediately here or in a much
    >> >>> shorter period of time.
    >> >>
    >> >> Such as?
    >> >
    >> > Hip replacement, about 2 months waiting time in the UK.
    >>
    >> That's pretty good. What's the waiting time in the other "lots of places"?
    >> How does that compare to the US?
    >I can't say for the other places, but extended waiting periods seem to
    >go hand in hand with universal coverage. In the U.S. a state funded
    >hip replacement will be completed in 7-10 days. Waiting for needed
    >procedures, for those who have coverage, just isn't a complaint in the
    >U.S.. But as the U.S. moves to more "managed care" with
    >'gatekeepers'... that will change.
    >jay
    >Tue Jul 20, 2004
    >mailto:[email protected]

Never has in mind and I have been in HMOs for 25 years now.

jbk

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:20:33 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    ><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> While most of this post is correct, it is nonsense to say that
    >> European healthcare is more available than in the US. Availability of
    >> healthcare here is the US in NOT the issue. Being able to pay for it
    >> is. It has been US law for several decades now that anyone going to
    >> an emergency room of a hospital receiving Federal funds (and which one
    >> is not?) can get medical care whether they pay for it or not.
    >Not quite. The regulations require that they provide
    >such emergency medical care as is required to stabilise
    >your condition. If you present with a chronic disease they
    >will keep you in until you are stable and then discharge you.
    >If you require an amputation you'll get that but dont
    >imagine they have to provide you with a prosthetic.

I didn't say you get ALL medical care there, did I? Much of the rest
is available under other programs, state and Federal, for those that
cannot pay.

    >Such emergency treatment is NOT free. If you have any assets
    >at all they WILL pursue you for payment and if you default
    >then bankruptcy is all too common. In addition most health
    >insurance schemes have a lifetime cap (mine was $ 1million)
    >above which you have no cover. A good friend of mine
    >in Chicago lost his wife to Cancer and in addition to the
    >bereavement lost his life savings as he had to pay for the
    >chemotherapy after they exceeded the health cover.

Not mine and few of these are really pursued. The IRS even doesn't go
after many judgments that they have already gotten. And, if you could
read, you would see that I didn't say it was free anyway. I said you
could get it whether you could pay or not.

    >> Second,
    >> availablity depends on WHAT the problem is and in lots of places in
    >> Europe you have lone (to very long) waiting lists to get medical care
    >> for conditions that you can either get immediately here or in a much
    >> shorter period of time. This is typical European blather which simply
    >> ignores the facts.
    >Those procedures that have long waiting lists are usually for
    >non life threatening conditions. Typical examples are hernia
    >repairs, joint replacements etc. Such treatment is only available
    >in the US if you have insurance or the means to pay. There
    >are private hospitals in Europe too so that option is open
    >to those unwilling to wait.

Baloney. I was in London when there was a BBC debate going on about
how long the heart surgery list was and how many patients were dying
waiting for treatment, so that is crap. Also, I would like to see you
walking around in great pain needing a hip replacement because it
doesn't threaten your life but just destroys your quality of life and
see how you would like what you are getting (not) for your tax money.

    >In fact private health insurance is MUCH cheaper in the UK
    >than the USA as primary care and drugs are still supplied
    >by the state system. Having lived in both the UK and USA
    >there's no doubt in my mind that health care is more generally
    >available in the UK. Any citizen (or visitor) can visit an NHS
    >doctor without the issue of payment even being raised.

Big surprise. You pay through the nose with taxes, then claim the
private insurance is cheaper. Try calculating the total bill ace and
see what it costs. I can see my doctor here anytime I want--usually
the same day I ask. How can it be more available than that?

    >There is no lifetime cap on cover.

Isn't on mine either.

    >Bottom line is for the rich healthcare in the US is
    >marginally better and much more comfortable but
    >for the poor and middle class European services
    >(and Canadian) offer muc better coverage.

Marginally better my ass. The Swedish Heath Minister didn't have to
resign recently because the system was worth a damn and the Swedes are
widely recognized to have one of the best in Europe. Go get some nice
cancer and then see where the advanced research for it is being done.
And much of the Canadian system contracts with US healthcare across
the border for your information.