Confused Yankee wants the truth on uks example of a national health care.
Aug 12th 2009, 11:40 pm
#91
I love my brick!
Joined: May 2007
Location: Peachy
Posts: 9,304
Re: Confused Yankee wants the truth on uks example of a national health care.
Aug 13th 2009, 1:06 am
#92
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Georgia USA
Posts: 281
Re: Confused Yankee wants the truth on uks example of a national health care.
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POINT......
I had cancer in 1997. It took 8 months of chemo, radiation and surgery.
It was discovered on Friday.... and I was in the top UK cancer hospital (Royal Marsden) 4 days later.... treatment started immediately.
Thank the Good Lord I am now in my 13th year of remission. If it had happened in the US, I'm sure I would gave been dead long ago, as I can't afford health insurance.
The NHS definitely saved my life....!!
Now I'm living in the US, all I have to do is stay healthy for another 7 years, then I'll qualify for medicare.
The USA had many good points.... I love my life here in Georgia... but I hate the health system!!
I had cancer in 1997. It took 8 months of chemo, radiation and surgery.
It was discovered on Friday.... and I was in the top UK cancer hospital (Royal Marsden) 4 days later.... treatment started immediately.
Thank the Good Lord I am now in my 13th year of remission. If it had happened in the US, I'm sure I would gave been dead long ago, as I can't afford health insurance.
The NHS definitely saved my life....!!
Now I'm living in the US, all I have to do is stay healthy for another 7 years, then I'll qualify for medicare.
The USA had many good points.... I love my life here in Georgia... but I hate the health system!!
Aug 13th 2009, 1:10 am
#93
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,285
Re: Confused Yankee wants the truth on uks example of a national health care.
On the other side of the coin...my 89 yr old mum fell a few months ago and broke her hip. She had hip surgery and stayed in hospital about 4 weeks...from there she went to a rehabilitation home which was run by the same hospital for 6 weeks. While she was there social services arranged for someone to visit her home and make the necessary improvements needed for her to go back and live there.
She now has 4 visits a day by social services...one to get her up, bathed, dressed and give her breakfast. The second arrives at lunchtime and gives her lunch....third in the evening to give her dinner. The final visit of the day is around 10/11 pm...this is to get her ready for bed and make sure she's in bed. She will have these visits while she continues to live in her own home.
Her family doctor pops in to see her every week...if she needs any tests the nurse comes to her home. If she needs to go to hospital the doctor arranges for an ambulance to collect her and return her home again. She takes approx 12 prescription meds per day...several times a day. The NHS arranges for her meds to be put into four blister packs (one for morning/lunchtime/evening/bedtime) for each day. When the social services ladies visit they make sure she takes the meds in the appropriate blister pack.
Cost to her $0.
She now has 4 visits a day by social services...one to get her up, bathed, dressed and give her breakfast. The second arrives at lunchtime and gives her lunch....third in the evening to give her dinner. The final visit of the day is around 10/11 pm...this is to get her ready for bed and make sure she's in bed. She will have these visits while she continues to live in her own home.
Her family doctor pops in to see her every week...if she needs any tests the nurse comes to her home. If she needs to go to hospital the doctor arranges for an ambulance to collect her and return her home again. She takes approx 12 prescription meds per day...several times a day. The NHS arranges for her meds to be put into four blister packs (one for morning/lunchtime/evening/bedtime) for each day. When the social services ladies visit they make sure she takes the meds in the appropriate blister pack.
Cost to her $0.
Knew there was a good reason I love the UK.
Aug 13th 2009, 2:21 am
#94
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 35,082
Re: Confused Yankee wants the truth on uks example of a national health care.
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POINT......
I had cancer in 1997. It took 8 months of chemo, radiation and surgery.
It was discovered on Friday.... and I was in the top UK cancer hospital (Royal Marsden) 4 days later.... treatment started immediately.
Thank the Good Lord I am now in my 13th year of remission. If it had happened in the US, I'm sure I would gave been dead long ago, as I can't afford health insurance.
The NHS definitely saved my life....!!
Now I'm living in the US, all I have to do is stay healthy for another 7 years, then I'll qualify for medicare.
The USA had many good points.... I love my life here in Georgia... but I hate the health system!!
I had cancer in 1997. It took 8 months of chemo, radiation and surgery.
It was discovered on Friday.... and I was in the top UK cancer hospital (Royal Marsden) 4 days later.... treatment started immediately.
Thank the Good Lord I am now in my 13th year of remission. If it had happened in the US, I'm sure I would gave been dead long ago, as I can't afford health insurance.
The NHS definitely saved my life....!!
Now I'm living in the US, all I have to do is stay healthy for another 7 years, then I'll qualify for medicare.
The USA had many good points.... I love my life here in Georgia... but I hate the health system!!
10 years ago, DH's wife died from a treatable cancer, on the NHS, due to waiting lists.
I'm glad you beat it.
Aug 13th 2009, 1:25 pm
#95
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,039
Re: Confused Yankee wants the truth on uks example of a national health care.
Another point of view for the OP from an Australian.
Australia has a free at point of service, government run, universal healthcare service. It also has a strong private insurance industry - "everyone" can use the public system if they wish or use the private for some things.
Without wanting to disrespect America my impression is that most (not all) Australians think the US system is pretty poor. We grow up on stories of the failure in US healthcare to look after a big chunk of its people (and ability to bankrupt). All our travel insurance policies have a special section for the US - if you are going to set foot in the US the premium goes sky high.
While everyone respects the cutting edge medical invention of the US, the money spent vs results, % of people covered, treatment of the poor and ill, ability to bankrupt etc all seems to point to a system failing many of its people and seriously in need of reform.
Almost all public health systems also have a huge volume of complaints and issues - but relatively speaking they are fantastic in comparison to the US system. Of course I don't mean they are better at everything - I mean taking everything into account.
I think the US would be a better (and wealthier) country if it reformed its healthcare system. It does a lot of things admirably, but not this.
My example:
My sister recently found a lump under her arm. She was a little bit worried as she had a melanoma cut out 8 months before. She went to the local doctor who sent her for tests. It was diagnosed as a possible secondary melanoma - a group of top surgeons and specialists met and decided on an action plan and performed surgery the same week.
As she has a chronic bowel condition that requires her to take immune suppressing drugs they decided to also remove her bowel so she could stop taking the drugs and therefore lower the risk of the cancer recurring.
This bowel surgery was performed ASAP after the first surgery and she is now recovering at home (after weeks in a top line hospital) with daily visits from nurses and all the equipment she needs to manage her bag.
Total outlay to her for "everything" is approx $45 per "year" for the bags and other daily supplies she receives.
To get this free healthcare she pays 1.5% of her taxable income per year. So on her approx $65,000 income she pays $975 a year for the public health system. This $975 per year levy is paid bit by bit in each paycheck so she barely notices it (it's just added onto the normal tax shown in each paycheck).
If she earned more than $70,000 as a single person or $140,000 as a couple she would also have to pay 1% extra levy (or take out private insurance then the 1% extra levy is waived). Even is she has private insurance she can still use the public system for free.
If she gets ill or loses her job she will always have full access to the same free medical as the rest of us - even if she never pays another cent into the jar.
As Australia has world leading survival rates for melanoma's (our doctors get a lot of practice) we are hoping she will be one of the lucky one's
Hope this explains the sort of things you wanted to know...
Australia has a free at point of service, government run, universal healthcare service. It also has a strong private insurance industry - "everyone" can use the public system if they wish or use the private for some things.
Without wanting to disrespect America my impression is that most (not all) Australians think the US system is pretty poor. We grow up on stories of the failure in US healthcare to look after a big chunk of its people (and ability to bankrupt). All our travel insurance policies have a special section for the US - if you are going to set foot in the US the premium goes sky high.
While everyone respects the cutting edge medical invention of the US, the money spent vs results, % of people covered, treatment of the poor and ill, ability to bankrupt etc all seems to point to a system failing many of its people and seriously in need of reform.
Almost all public health systems also have a huge volume of complaints and issues - but relatively speaking they are fantastic in comparison to the US system. Of course I don't mean they are better at everything - I mean taking everything into account.
I think the US would be a better (and wealthier) country if it reformed its healthcare system. It does a lot of things admirably, but not this.
My example:
My sister recently found a lump under her arm. She was a little bit worried as she had a melanoma cut out 8 months before. She went to the local doctor who sent her for tests. It was diagnosed as a possible secondary melanoma - a group of top surgeons and specialists met and decided on an action plan and performed surgery the same week.
As she has a chronic bowel condition that requires her to take immune suppressing drugs they decided to also remove her bowel so she could stop taking the drugs and therefore lower the risk of the cancer recurring.
This bowel surgery was performed ASAP after the first surgery and she is now recovering at home (after weeks in a top line hospital) with daily visits from nurses and all the equipment she needs to manage her bag.
Total outlay to her for "everything" is approx $45 per "year" for the bags and other daily supplies she receives.
To get this free healthcare she pays 1.5% of her taxable income per year. So on her approx $65,000 income she pays $975 a year for the public health system. This $975 per year levy is paid bit by bit in each paycheck so she barely notices it (it's just added onto the normal tax shown in each paycheck).
If she earned more than $70,000 as a single person or $140,000 as a couple she would also have to pay 1% extra levy (or take out private insurance then the 1% extra levy is waived). Even is she has private insurance she can still use the public system for free.
If she gets ill or loses her job she will always have full access to the same free medical as the rest of us - even if she never pays another cent into the jar.
As Australia has world leading survival rates for melanoma's (our doctors get a lot of practice) we are hoping she will be one of the lucky one's
Hope this explains the sort of things you wanted to know...
Last edited by fish.01; Aug 13th 2009 at 1:40 pm.
Aug 13th 2009, 1:30 pm
#96
SUPER MODERATOR
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 88,040
Re: Confused Yankee wants the truth on uks example of a national health care.
Another point of view for the OP from an Australian.
Australia has a free at point of service, government run, universal healthcare service. It also has a strong private insurance industry - "everyone" can use the public system if they wish or use the private for some things.
Without wanting to disrespect America my impression is that most (not all) Australians think the US system is pretty poor. We grow up on stories of the failure in US healthcare to look after a big chunk of its people (and ability to bankrupt). All our travel insurance policies have a special section for the US - if you are going to set foot in the US the premium goes sky high.
While everyone respects the cutting edge medical invention of the US, the money spent vs results, % of people covered, treatment of the poor and ill, ability to bankrupt etc all seems to point to a system failing many of its people and seriously in need of reform.
Almost all public health systems also have a huge volume of complaints and issues - but relatively speaking they are fantastic in comparison to the US system. Of course I don't mean they are better at everything - I mean taking everything into account.
I think the US would be a better (and wealthier) country if it reformed its healthcare system. It does a lot of things admirably, but not this.
My example:
My sister recently found a lump under her arm. She was a little bit worried as she had a melanoma cut out 8 months before. She went to the local doctor who sent her for tests. It was diagnosed as a possible secondary melanoma - a group of top surgeons and specialists met and decided on an action plan and performed surgery the same week.
As she has a chronic bowel condition that requires her to take immune suppressing drugs they decided to also remove her bowel so she could stop taking the drugs and therefore lower the risk of the cancer recurring.
This bowel surgery was performed ASAP after the first surgery and she is now recovering at home (after weeks in a top line hospital) with daily visits from nurses and all the equipment she needs to manage her bag.
Total outlay to her for "everything" is approx $45 per "year" for the bags and other daily supplies she receives.
To get this free healthcare she pays 1.5% of her taxable income per year. So on her approx $65,000 income she pays $975 a year for the public health system. This $975 per year levy is paid bit by bit in each paycheck so she barely notices it (it's just added onto the normal tax shown in each paycheck).
If she earned more than $70,000 as a single person or $140,000 as a couple she would also have to pay 1.5% extra levy (or take out private insurance then the 1.5% extra levy is waived). Even is she has private insurance she can still use the public system for free.
If she gets ill or loses her job she will always have full access to the same free medical as the rest of us - even if she never pays another cent into the jar.
As Australia has world leading survival rates for melanoma's (our doctors get a lot of practice) we are hoping she will be one of the lucky one's
Hope this explains the sort of things you wanted to know...
Australia has a free at point of service, government run, universal healthcare service. It also has a strong private insurance industry - "everyone" can use the public system if they wish or use the private for some things.
Without wanting to disrespect America my impression is that most (not all) Australians think the US system is pretty poor. We grow up on stories of the failure in US healthcare to look after a big chunk of its people (and ability to bankrupt). All our travel insurance policies have a special section for the US - if you are going to set foot in the US the premium goes sky high.
While everyone respects the cutting edge medical invention of the US, the money spent vs results, % of people covered, treatment of the poor and ill, ability to bankrupt etc all seems to point to a system failing many of its people and seriously in need of reform.
Almost all public health systems also have a huge volume of complaints and issues - but relatively speaking they are fantastic in comparison to the US system. Of course I don't mean they are better at everything - I mean taking everything into account.
I think the US would be a better (and wealthier) country if it reformed its healthcare system. It does a lot of things admirably, but not this.
My example:
My sister recently found a lump under her arm. She was a little bit worried as she had a melanoma cut out 8 months before. She went to the local doctor who sent her for tests. It was diagnosed as a possible secondary melanoma - a group of top surgeons and specialists met and decided on an action plan and performed surgery the same week.
As she has a chronic bowel condition that requires her to take immune suppressing drugs they decided to also remove her bowel so she could stop taking the drugs and therefore lower the risk of the cancer recurring.
This bowel surgery was performed ASAP after the first surgery and she is now recovering at home (after weeks in a top line hospital) with daily visits from nurses and all the equipment she needs to manage her bag.
Total outlay to her for "everything" is approx $45 per "year" for the bags and other daily supplies she receives.
To get this free healthcare she pays 1.5% of her taxable income per year. So on her approx $65,000 income she pays $975 a year for the public health system. This $975 per year levy is paid bit by bit in each paycheck so she barely notices it (it's just added onto the normal tax shown in each paycheck).
If she earned more than $70,000 as a single person or $140,000 as a couple she would also have to pay 1.5% extra levy (or take out private insurance then the 1.5% extra levy is waived). Even is she has private insurance she can still use the public system for free.
If she gets ill or loses her job she will always have full access to the same free medical as the rest of us - even if she never pays another cent into the jar.
As Australia has world leading survival rates for melanoma's (our doctors get a lot of practice) we are hoping she will be one of the lucky one's
Hope this explains the sort of things you wanted to know...
Well put and
for your sister's recovery.
Aug 13th 2009, 3:31 pm
#97
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,542
Re: Confused Yankee wants the truth on uks example of a national health care.
DH wants to know why all the complainers at the town hall meetings are old white people!?
Aug 13th 2009, 3:35 pm
#98
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 4,525
Re: Confused Yankee wants the truth on uks example of a national health care.
Another point of view for the OP from an Australian.
Australia has a free at point of service, government run, universal healthcare service. It also has a strong private insurance industry - "everyone" can use the public system if they wish or use the private for some things.
Without wanting to disrespect America my impression is that most (not all) Australians think the US system is pretty poor. We grow up on stories of the failure in US healthcare to look after a big chunk of its people (and ability to bankrupt). All our travel insurance policies have a special section for the US - if you are going to set foot in the US the premium goes sky high.
While everyone respects the cutting edge medical invention of the US, the money spent vs results, % of people covered, treatment of the poor and ill, ability to bankrupt etc all seems to point to a system failing many of its people and seriously in need of reform.
Almost all public health systems also have a huge volume of complaints and issues - but relatively speaking they are fantastic in comparison to the US system. Of course I don't mean they are better at everything - I mean taking everything into account.
I think the US would be a better (and wealthier) country if it reformed its healthcare system. It does a lot of things admirably, but not this.
My example:
My sister recently found a lump under her arm. She was a little bit worried as she had a melanoma cut out 8 months before. She went to the local doctor who sent her for tests. It was diagnosed as a possible secondary melanoma - a group of top surgeons and specialists met and decided on an action plan and performed surgery the same week.
As she has a chronic bowel condition that requires her to take immune suppressing drugs they decided to also remove her bowel so she could stop taking the drugs and therefore lower the risk of the cancer recurring.
This bowel surgery was performed ASAP after the first surgery and she is now recovering at home (after weeks in a top line hospital) with daily visits from nurses and all the equipment she needs to manage her bag.
Total outlay to her for "everything" is approx $45 per "year" for the bags and other daily supplies she receives.
To get this free healthcare she pays 1.5% of her taxable income per year. So on her approx $65,000 income she pays $975 a year for the public health system. This $975 per year levy is paid bit by bit in each paycheck so she barely notices it (it's just added onto the normal tax shown in each paycheck).
If she earned more than $70,000 as a single person or $140,000 as a couple she would also have to pay 1% extra levy (or take out private insurance then the 1% extra levy is waived). Even is she has private insurance she can still use the public system for free.
If she gets ill or loses her job she will always have full access to the same free medical as the rest of us - even if she never pays another cent into the jar.
As Australia has world leading survival rates for melanoma's (our doctors get a lot of practice) we are hoping she will be one of the lucky one's
Hope this explains the sort of things you wanted to know...
Australia has a free at point of service, government run, universal healthcare service. It also has a strong private insurance industry - "everyone" can use the public system if they wish or use the private for some things.
Without wanting to disrespect America my impression is that most (not all) Australians think the US system is pretty poor. We grow up on stories of the failure in US healthcare to look after a big chunk of its people (and ability to bankrupt). All our travel insurance policies have a special section for the US - if you are going to set foot in the US the premium goes sky high.
While everyone respects the cutting edge medical invention of the US, the money spent vs results, % of people covered, treatment of the poor and ill, ability to bankrupt etc all seems to point to a system failing many of its people and seriously in need of reform.
Almost all public health systems also have a huge volume of complaints and issues - but relatively speaking they are fantastic in comparison to the US system. Of course I don't mean they are better at everything - I mean taking everything into account.
I think the US would be a better (and wealthier) country if it reformed its healthcare system. It does a lot of things admirably, but not this.
My example:
My sister recently found a lump under her arm. She was a little bit worried as she had a melanoma cut out 8 months before. She went to the local doctor who sent her for tests. It was diagnosed as a possible secondary melanoma - a group of top surgeons and specialists met and decided on an action plan and performed surgery the same week.
As she has a chronic bowel condition that requires her to take immune suppressing drugs they decided to also remove her bowel so she could stop taking the drugs and therefore lower the risk of the cancer recurring.
This bowel surgery was performed ASAP after the first surgery and she is now recovering at home (after weeks in a top line hospital) with daily visits from nurses and all the equipment she needs to manage her bag.
Total outlay to her for "everything" is approx $45 per "year" for the bags and other daily supplies she receives.
To get this free healthcare she pays 1.5% of her taxable income per year. So on her approx $65,000 income she pays $975 a year for the public health system. This $975 per year levy is paid bit by bit in each paycheck so she barely notices it (it's just added onto the normal tax shown in each paycheck).
If she earned more than $70,000 as a single person or $140,000 as a couple she would also have to pay 1% extra levy (or take out private insurance then the 1% extra levy is waived). Even is she has private insurance she can still use the public system for free.
If she gets ill or loses her job she will always have full access to the same free medical as the rest of us - even if she never pays another cent into the jar.
As Australia has world leading survival rates for melanoma's (our doctors get a lot of practice) we are hoping she will be one of the lucky one's
Hope this explains the sort of things you wanted to know...
Aug 13th 2009, 3:41 pm
#99
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,865
Re: Confused Yankee wants the truth on uks example of a national health care.
Because they already benefit from socialized medicine and see extension of it as a threat to their Medicare "pot". They're really saying "I'm all right Jack, keep your hands off my stack" but code it by wrapping it up as the horrors of "government-controlled socialized medicine". It's all very ironic.
Aug 13th 2009, 4:20 pm
#100
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Baltimore, USA
Posts: 526
Re: Confused Yankee wants the truth on uks example of a national health care.
Many Americans have no real life experience of 'overseas' so they don't really know what they are talking about, especially when it comes to the NHS. They base their comments on what they are fed by whichever political party they believe in. If one more person talks about 'socialized medicine'....
I have not been following the arguments closely mainly because I have decided to stay out of US political debates because of my blood pressure (just kidding, but I will never understand the US mentality when it comes to all the conservative/liberal shite...God bless America shite..etc).
However, I can't understand how making sure that everyone has access to see a GP and get some healthcare is a bad thing.
I have not been following the arguments closely mainly because I have decided to stay out of US political debates because of my blood pressure (just kidding, but I will never understand the US mentality when it comes to all the conservative/liberal shite...God bless America shite..etc).
However, I can't understand how making sure that everyone has access to see a GP and get some healthcare is a bad thing.
Aug 13th 2009, 4:49 pm
#101
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: North Charleston,SC. born in Stockport,UK.
Posts: 10,109
Re: Confused Yankee wants the truth on uks example of a national health care.
I have come to realize that in any opposition, the bottom line is usually $$$
I don't think it matters to 'most' that in the end, a change in the health system, will mean more availability to medical care to more people. If they 'think' that it will mean more out of pocket $$ to them, it is automatically going to be something they don't want/need, most people (I know) can't be arsed to go get their own facts and distrust anything the Gov't tells them...I know this is a generalization (and I hate those) but, this is just my opinion from listening and reading posts on here.I am trying to put together a 'letter to the editor' for my local rag, if I can put together something informative and from my own experience of the NHS,without trying to be too 'un' American, I may just send it in
Aug 13th 2009, 5:17 pm
#102
Maño-Americano
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: In the heart of the Ozarks
Posts: 10,216
Re: Confused Yankee wants the truth on uks example of a national health care.
I have come to realize that in any opposition, the bottom line is usually $$$ I don't think it matters to 'most' that in the end, a change in the health system, will mean more availability to medical care to more people. If they 'think' that it will mean more out of pocket $$ to them, it is automatically going to be something they don't want/need, most people (I know) can't be arsed to go get their own facts and distrust anything the Gov't tells them...I know this is a generalization (and I hate those) but, this is just my opinion from listening and reading posts on here.
I am trying to put together a 'letter to the editor' for my local rag, if I can put together something informative and from my own experience of the NHS,without trying to be too 'un' American, I may just send it in
I don't think it matters to 'most' that in the end, a change in the health system, will mean more availability to medical care to more people. If they 'think' that it will mean more out of pocket $$ to them, it is automatically going to be something they don't want/need, most people (I know) can't be arsed to go get their own facts and distrust anything the Gov't tells them...I know this is a generalization (and I hate those) but, this is just my opinion from listening and reading posts on here.I am trying to put together a 'letter to the editor' for my local rag, if I can put together something informative and from my own experience of the NHS,without trying to be too 'un' American, I may just send it in
I have always found that the biggest resistance to change is fear of the change itself, of the unknown. The status quo is usually the most unmovable force in the world.
Doubly true of a major change written by a bunch of corrupt congressmen with their hands in the pockets of all types of special intrestst...who you wouldn't trust to run a Kool-Aid stand at the county fair.
Aug 13th 2009, 7:12 pm
#103
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: North Charleston,SC. born in Stockport,UK.
Posts: 10,109
Re: Confused Yankee wants the truth on uks example of a national health care.
I have always found that the biggest resistance to change is fear of the change itself, of the unknown. The status quo is usually the most unmovable force in the world.
Doubly true of a major change written by a bunch of corrupt congressmen with their hands in the pockets of all types of special intrestst...who you wouldn't trust to run a Kool-Aid stand at the county fair.
Doubly true of a major change written by a bunch of corrupt congressmen with their hands in the pockets of all types of special intrestst...who you wouldn't trust to run a Kool-Aid stand at the county fair.
Aug 13th 2009, 7:19 pm
#104
SUPER MODERATOR
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 88,040
Re: Confused Yankee wants the truth on uks example of a national health care.
I agree with that too, a lot of the resistance is simply because it's 'different', but I still think the money is the biggest worry to most I have talked too, they have this idea that they will be paying (personally) for everybody that doesn't have a 'legal' job or for those earning minimum wage, I do understand the mistrust of the Gov't to come up with a fair and balanced plan (not a great record in the past) But it is just frustrating to hear statements like "I don't care about the rest, I can live with it as it is"
Of course this is true...they are paying for those who are not contributing. What they forget is come the day when they or any member of their family need medical help and are not working...they will be one of those people too.
Aug 13th 2009, 7:32 pm
#105
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Baltimore, USA
Posts: 526
Re: Confused Yankee wants the truth on uks example of a national health care.
I have come to realize that in any opposition, the bottom line is usually $$$ I don't think it matters to 'most' that in the end, a change in the health system, will mean more availability to medical care to more people. If they 'think' that it will mean more out of pocket $$ to them, it is automatically going to be something they don't want/need, most people (I know) can't be arsed to go get their own facts and distrust anything the Gov't tells them...I know this is a generalization (and I hate those) but, this is just my opinion from listening and reading posts on here.
I am trying to put together a 'letter to the editor' for my local rag, if I can put together something informative and from my own experience of the NHS,without trying to be too 'un' American, I may just send it in
I don't think it matters to 'most' that in the end, a change in the health system, will mean more availability to medical care to more people. If they 'think' that it will mean more out of pocket $$ to them, it is automatically going to be something they don't want/need, most people (I know) can't be arsed to go get their own facts and distrust anything the Gov't tells them...I know this is a generalization (and I hate those) but, this is just my opinion from listening and reading posts on here.I am trying to put together a 'letter to the editor' for my local rag, if I can put together something informative and from my own experience of the NHS,without trying to be too 'un' American, I may just send it in