Jerseygirl

Sophia_S

Yes, from what I remember,that was exactly what it was like,and at the time,when I did speak,I could squeeze about three words out and they would exhaust me so much,I'd fall fast asleep for half an hour or so....so one sentence could take a whole afternoon!,by which time the shifts would've changed,so it was back to square one!...and Vicki was right,my husband is American so he had no idea how the NHS worked....and,as if that wasn't enough,our car was pinched from the hospital car park while he was in visiting me one evening,so he had to deal with the British Police as well...(it was found a few days later in a ditch at Hartley Whitney,minus my child benefit book,the baby's Mickey Mouse and his new pushchair!!!!!!):curse:

Jerseygirl

That happened to a girl I knew. She and her mum spent the night by her father's bedside...he died during the night...when they got to the car park her car had been stolen.

effi

Doesn't this just piss you off though. What the hell costs in excess of half a million dollars. Is it the surgeons time, the rental of the operating room, what the hell can cost this much. This makes me so angry I wish I had never read this thread now. We can bring kids from other countries here to treat them, but we have kids in this country dying from cancer because very little of the money collected thru charitable means is going to them. Has anyone read the Miles Levin page on Carepages.com. Very sobering, go take a look.

Sophia_S

I'd always heard Frimley Park was a good hospital as well,and I have no complaints about any of the nurses or doctors there,it was just that one physio therapist,all the people were great in the Atkinson Morley hospital in London as well, including the physio therapist,I never had a problem with the NHS before either....I was always one of those people who never went to the doctor unless I absolutely had to,I always used to think there's always someone who needs to see the doctor more than I do,and I'm still like that,going to the doctor is,and always has been,a last resort for me...when I got ill was the only time I've ever called a doctor out in my life,although I've had the doctor tell me off a few times because I've dragged myself to the office instead of calling him out,in the UK, of course!

p.s.I can't really say a whole lot about healthcare in the US,because while my husband was in the USAF we had health coverage through the Military and now we've got good coverage because my husband works for the State,but I do absolutely think that everybody in the country should have health coverage,I can't imagine how frightening it must be to get sick and be scared to go to a doctor,or to know that one illness could bankrupt you,and your family,just that kind of stress could make things so much worse....yes, the NHS isn't perfect,but neither is the healthcare system here, or anywhere else in the world for that matter,is it?

Giantaxe

True, but there is only one western democracy where a serious illness is so likely to bankrupt you. Of personal bankruptcies filed last year, inability to pay healthcare-related bills was the major cause of 48% of them.

Sophia_S

[QUOTE=Giantaxe;5366529]True, but there is only one western democracy where a serious illness is so likely to bankrupt you. Of personal bankruptcies filed last year, inability to pay healthcare-related bills was the major cause of 48% of them.[/QUOT

Yes,that's the most frightening, and the saddest thing, about the US,and it absolutely shouldn't be like that.......if raising taxes is the answer,so everyone could have basic health coverage,wouldn't it mean less expense later on because illnesses would be caught at an earlier stage,while they're still treatable?...it makes sense to me,I know raising taxes is not popular,but wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run?

Bluegrass Lass

Well, I guess most on here would call me a bit selfish, but I refuse to pay more taxes to cover healthcare for others. We already lose about 50% of our salaries to taxes (together we make a little more than $100k putting us into a high tax bracket) and we can't afford to lose anymore. I have to think about our financial situation and I know we couldn't afford to lose much more for taxes.

I have a few concerns about gov't run systems. For one, I agree with ABY in that I do not trust the gov't to run anything efficiently. Hubby is a UKC getting to file for his US citizenship, and I am by no means impressed with how they run immigration. If that is any indicator of their mismanagement when they are only dealing with a paltry few million citizens/residents, then what would it like if they were dealing with 300mil? To be flat honest, I have absolutely no faith in the gov't to run it after encountering the serious inconsistencies with USCIS.

I also have a big concern with quality of care. If there are still private hospitals & doctors, I would assume that there would be higher salaries for doctors and nurses in private rather than the public system. How many excellent doctors will opt for the higher salaries? Or are salaries for the public system comparable to the private? How would the system be set up to handle people with long term, chronic conditions (i.e. mulitple sclerosis, diabetes, etc)? Would these people end up paying more NHS (for lack of better acronym) taxes because they are costing the system more money than healthier folk? I can just see the gov't saying "you are sick more often, therefore you should pay more." I know the UK doesn't do that, though, so maybe the US wouldn't either.

And what about treatment waiting periods?? When I was diagnosed with MS 6 years ago, I was able to get an appt w/a specialist, and get a CT and MRI scan all within 3 weeks (to help aid the diagnosis). Can the same be said in UK? I've read about some folks being on a very long waiting list for these types of tests. If I had had to wait months to get the tests, I may not have gotten diagnosed because there would no longer have been signs of the disesase. I've also read about some treatments being denied to some terminal patients (specifically, regarding cancer treatment) because it was a costly treatment and it wasn't guaranteed to help. Some might argue that no system can support all treatments for everyone, but who gets to play 'God' and determine who can get what treatment? Hasn't the 'power' just switched hands from the insurance companies to the gov't?

I know my situation is just one of many millions, and I know there are many, many much more sad cases than mine, and I agree that something needs to change. My post probably sounds very anti-'national healthcare', but I most definitely am not. I am for it, if the quality of care and facilities stays the same as now (or bettter), if the cost is right, and if it's going to be run efficiently and effectively.

I'd love to learn more about the varietys of national healthcare that some countries have, so if people want to PM me with some links that would great. May help ease my mind a bit and get me fully on-board with a national healthcare system.

Sally

[QUOTE=Sophia_S;5366554] A lot of money is spent on the Kafkaesque billing system as well.

Sarah

I'm hoping the south will rise again and secede from the union like they wanted to origianally, then cut the top in half and call it Americanistan and Californitopia.

snowbunny

Nooooooooo.....

Now like then the South could turn into a poor country overnight -- braindrain from hell would occur. Most of my *Southern* ancestors weren't stupid.... they either fought for the Yanks or they moved to the North!

dunroving

If you consider other tax-funded services like schools and roads, then it doesn't make sense to charge a heck of a lot more to a sick person than a healthy person (although as said before, I think some sort of co-pay system is a good idea). I see that as the whole idea of tax-funded services - some people benefit more from some of them, some people benefit more from others.

neil

Don't forget the "hidden" tax you're already paying - any company that provides you healthcare is generally paying a substantial amount to an insurance company on your behalf. If they didn't have to pay that then they would be able to pay you more money.

Sophia_S

I agree with you as well,SFG,...and Neil is right as well.....so what is the answer?,how long can things go on the way they are?,there's no easy answer, and, no matter what is set up,there will always be some who will abuse the system in some way,look at the insurance fraud we hear about now,and there's probably a lot more that we don't hear about.

Giantaxe

You are already paying a "tax" with the current system in that companies end up paying a big chunk of the costs, which they then attempt to pass onto their consumers in the form of higher prices. Oh, and personally, "I refuse" to pay any more taxes for Bush's stupid wars.

As I've said before, there is zero chance of an NHS-style system in the US:- the provision of services will remain private whatever system of funding prevails. The issue really comes down to how to provide access to the currently uninsured and underinsured.

A non-issue. Medicare, for example, doesn't tax sicker citizens more.

Firstly, waiting lists are often infinite for the uninsured in the US:- they simply don't have the means to obtain certain treatment. Then they end up a lot sicker in the emergency room - often paid for through taxes. How can this be a sensible provision of healthcare? Secondly, it's a good point about who plays "God". Undoubtedly, some power would transfer from insurance company to government in a single payer system. Personally, I prefer this to the the current administrative nightmare (6% of GDP!!!) of the current system - this is simply an egregious waste of resources that could be better applied to care itself. Google "single payer system" and look at how other countries administer their systems.