Go Fig

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

    > 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.

At present, your HMO is still competing with non HMOs for clients.

Can you self refer to a specialist ?

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

Poldy

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

    > 90% of pharmaceutical R and D
    > done in the US


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

Jenn

Dave Smith 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.
    >
    >
    > Why would you not take the word of someone who actually knows over that
    > of someone who had no idea?
    >
    >


it is also not a simple question -- e.g. in Italy it is available to
everyone -- but many things that Americans take for granted are not
available -- including something as simple as nursing care -- basic
nursing care must be provided by the family e.g. feeding, bathing,
changing etc And advanced interventions are not readily available.

On the other hand, everyone has basic care.

it is scandalous that in the US so many people are excluded from the
system and bankrupted if they have an emergency

it is also scandalous that people without insurance pay many times as
much for care as the insurance companies pay for those with insurance

Jenn

[email protected] wrote:

    > 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.

this is just an ignorant statement of US health care -- sure if you are
bleeding you can get ER care [and later be driven into bankruptcy to pay
for it] but there is no routine care available to control blood
pressure -- although the ER will treat your stroke -- there is no care
for management of chronic diabetes although the ER will treat your
stroke, heart attack or whatever etc etc etc -- ERs have to treat crises
-- but no one has to provide the care that will discover cancer when it
is treatable, or provide the medications needed to prevent a crisis


    >
    >
    >
    > 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.)
    >
    >

Jenn

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


it would be pretty rare in the US for hip replacement to be scheduled in
less than 2 months

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, jenn <[email protected]>
wrote:

    > 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.
    > >
    > > jay
    > > Tue Jul 20, 2004
    > > mailto:[email protected]
    >
    >
    > it would be pretty rare in the US for hip replacement to be scheduled in
    > less than 2 months


Hummm, whats your source ?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...9/113918.shtml

"Half (50 percent) of the Canadian hospital administrators said the
average waiting time for a 65-year-old man who requires a routine hip
replacement was more than six months; in contrast, no (as in zero)
American hospital administrators reported waiting periods that long. 86
percent of American hospital administrators said the average waiting
time was shorter than three weeks; only 3 percent of Canadian hospital
administrators said their patients have this brief a wait."

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

127 . 0 . 0 . 1

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:14:16 -0500, jenn <[email protected]> wrote:


    >it is scandalous that in the US so many people are excluded from the
    >system and bankrupted if they have an emergency
    >it is also scandalous that people without insurance pay many times as
    >much for care as the insurance companies pay for those with insurance
the real scandal is that people don't responsiblity for their own
needs and when something happens they look to others to pay their
bills

127 . 0 . 0 . 1

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:17:31 -0500, jenn <[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >> 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.
    >this is just an ignorant statement of US health care -- sure if you are
    >bleeding you can get ER care [and later be driven into bankruptcy to pay
    >for it] ,
that is an ignorant statement that distorts the truth, nobody is
denied emergency medical care in an emergency situation, the problem
is that the looney left thinks a runny nose is an emergency situation

    >b there is no routine care available to control blood
    >pressure -- although the ER will treat your stroke -- there is no care
    >for management of chronic diabetes although the ER will treat your
    >stroke, heart attack or whatever etc etc etc -- ERs have to treat crises


take responsibility for your own care and it won't become acute and
chronic

    >-- but no one has to provide the care that will discover cancer when it
    >is treatable, or provide the medications needed to prevent a crisis
see above

Bill Moore

    >>[email protected] wrote:
    >>> 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.

And thus, for those who cannot afford it, availability of health care in
the US is an issue.

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, 127.0.0.1
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:14:16 -0500, jenn <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >it is scandalous that in the US so many people are excluded from the
    > >system and bankrupted if they have an emergency
    > >
    > >it is also scandalous that people without insurance pay many times as
    > >much for care as the insurance companies pay for those with insurance
    > the real scandal is that people don't responsiblity for their own
    > needs and when something happens they look to others to pay their
    > bills

... if you build it, they will come....

I recently saw a study that suggested all the government scholarships
and loan guarantees for higher education have been the largest single
factor in the explosion in tuition rates... all that funding in the
market has caused the price point to explode.

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

127 . 0 . 0 . 1

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:24:35 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, 127.0.0.1
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:14:16 -0500, jenn <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> >it is scandalous that in the US so many people are excluded from the
    >> >system and bankrupted if they have an emergency
    >> >
    >> >it is also scandalous that people without insurance pay many times as
    >> >much for care as the insurance companies pay for those with insurance
    >> the real scandal is that people don't responsiblity for their own
    >> needs and when something happens they look to others to pay their
    >> bills
    >... if you build it, they will come....
    >I recently saw a study that suggested all the government scholarships
    >and loan guarantees for higher education have been the largest single
    >factor in the explosion in tuition rates... all that funding in the
    >market has caused the price point to explode.

it's really quite simple more students equals more demand so costs go
higher, if the many marginal students in marginal schools weren't
subsidized there wouldn't be so much upward pressure on tuition costs,
a similar argument can be made for health care

Frank F. Matthews

Go Fig wrote:

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

    >>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.
    >
    >
    > At present, your HMO is still competing with non HMOs for clients.
    >
    > Can you self refer to a specialist ?
    >
    > jay

While a POS instead of a HMO I can self refer to a specialist who is
within the clinic system that my PCP is a member of. It looks now as
though some companies are considering the cost of trying to control
referrals. Accounting costs are the bane of US health care.

Frank F. Matthews

The cost & availability of health care is extremely variable in the US.
A couple of years ago while traveling in central Texas my wife cut her
hand and needed a tetanus shot. We could not find a doctor available in
the town at first. Finally someone sent us off to the charity clinic in
the poor part of town. 20 minutes later and immunized we were off
again. Because we could afford it we paid a premium cost. $30 as I
remember. Good care and free to those who could not afford to pay. It
was probably funded by local taxes but was quite good.

In a large city you would probably have a 6 hour wait.

Bill Moore wrote:

    >>>[email protected] wrote:
    >>>>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.
    >
    >
    > And thus, for those who cannot afford it, availability of health care in
    > the US is an issue.
    >

Keith Willshaw

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > 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.

Medical costs are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the USA
and your implication was that such treatment was indeed free.

    > >
    > >
    > >> 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.

Debate is excellent but it was about the waiting lists for transplants
as I recall, that treatment is limited by the availability of donors.

    > 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.

I have had multiple orthopaedic treatments including surgical intervention
as a result having had two major accidents and its consequent
osteoarthritis.
My medical insurance in the USA specifically excluded cover for this
'chronic' condition. Fortunately I could return to the UK for treatment

    > >
    > >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.

Several surveys in the UK have shown that the cost of healthcare
in the UK per person is well below the level in the US.
There's a reason why no party stands on the basis of abandoning
the NHS. It would be political poison.

    > I can see my doctor here anytime I want--usually
    > the same day I ask. How can it be more available than that?

So can I. in fact so can anyone, thats rather the point.

    > >
    > >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.

AFAIK Lars Engqvist has been minister of health for some years now,
perhaps you can elighten us as when he resigned

> Go get some nice
    > cancer and then see where the advanced research for it is being done.

There are other research programs outside the USA old son.

    > And much of the Canadian system contracts with US healthcare across
    > the border for your information.

And many US citizens travel to Canada for treatment and drugs.

Keith

The Reids

Following up to 127.0.0.1

    >the real scandal is that people don't responsiblity for their own
    >needs and when something happens they look to others to pay their
    >bills

we take responsibility for our needs by paying taxes and all
benefit according to need, especially the poor. Scandal is hardly
appropriate.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap