It's interesting that appears that Britain and America are both incapable of rational debate about public healthcare. If anyone in Britain suggests anything other than the NHS, as it presently is, they are accused of wanting the American system and all its problems. If anyone in America suggests any form of public provision of healthcare then they are accused of wanting the NHS.
CurtCB Wrote:I still hear talk of Death panels. We have always had death panels in our country. They are called Insurance companies. They spend billions on denying claims.
I wonder how many Americans died this year because they simply stopped fighting their insurance company?
I have a 3000 dollar annual deductible on a 700 dollar cost to me a month policy. I don't get sick enough to require 3000 dollars worth of health care per year.. but what if? It's like trying to understand Sanskrit to read my policy. I have no other choice. The same people screaming about death panels, I pay for their medicare. I just don't get it.
Even America cannot afford all the healthcare that it wants, not even nearly. It already has a system for 'rationing' healthcare, first by cost, many millions of Americans are uninsured or under-insured, second by those inpenetrable insurance policies. Tens of thousands of people are employed by doctors and hospitals ensuring that insurers are billed in the correct manner with the necessary justifications to comply with the policies and a similar number are employed by the insurers to check and challenge the bills. Many lawyers make a good living testing and defending these policies in the courts. By any standard the current system for 'rationing' healthcare is very inefficient, it costs billions yet many people miss out on relativity low cost yet effective treatments.
America spends c. 16% of its GDP on healthcare, whereas Britain spends only c. 8% of its smaller GDP on healthcare. A huge tranche of that extra money does fund the insurance bureaucracy but much does go into funding actual healthcare, the majority of Americans do have very good access to very good healthcare. However there is very little evidence that all this extra spending means that Americans are actually any healthier than us Brits.
CurtCB Wrote:It seem like the older generation in the US didn't have to pay near what I did for education and got every government benefit dating back to the 1930s. things that myself being born under Reagan I never got.
now they scream about socialism?
I say turn them all into soylent green and be done with it.
As an aside, 'generational accounting' is an interesting activity. The ever increasing number of people beyond their working years puts an ever increasing burden on those in work. I strongly believe that my generation are paying for various benefits for the old that we will not see in our retirement.
Regarding charges for prescriptions, dental treatment and the like. It does indeed make a mockery of the claim for the NHS being 'free at the point of use', it always has. Its introduction caused deep division in the Cabinet. Nye Bevan's NHS was from a financial point of view an utter disaster. He had come to the charming view that as the years went on the people of Britain would become healthier thanks to the NHS and that their use of it would decrease. The acutal operating budget for the NHS in its fourth year of existence was twice what was projected at the outset. Perscription charges were brought in to both raise, a little revenue for the NHS, and restrict its use to those who really needed it.
sox-and-the-city Wrote:I take it the free flu jabs for at risk groups is a UK wide thing??
Yes. Essentially for such national communicable disease issues the Department of Heath in Whitehall calls the shots, if they say that flu jabs will be provided for free then that is what the health departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will do. When vaccination is opened up to the wider population that should be free too.
marshlander Wrote:I heard once that, in some areas, victims of road traffic accidents are actually required to reimburse a health authority for treatment if they are the party who caused the accident. Does anyone know if this is true?
Theoretically yes. There has long been a provision in law for the NHS to recoup its costs from treating the victims of road accidents from the party that is legally liable for the incident, which may be one of the victims. The NHS rarely manages to do this, partly because it has almost no idea how much its treatment costs, and therefore no idea how much it should bill for. I have never heard of the NHS pursuing a claim for costs against someone who wasn't insured (or whose insurance didn't cover their own injuries) partly because, in practice, its almost impossible to actually recover any significant amount of money from such parties.